'A  J.  E  T  T  E  R 


LSHOP  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA 


»N  THE  SUBJECT  O? 


HIS  I?ATE  PASTORAL 


THE  YaLISB.UEY  convention  : 


H.\Ill3r;VN  OF  THE  COIDJITTEE  ON  THE  STATE  OP  TEE-  CHURCH. 


/        NEW- YORK: 

sTANFORiJ  AND  Words,  137,  Broadway. 


1850. 


f 


A  LETTER  ^    ^  . 
BISHOP  OF  NORTH  CAROLINA 


ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF 

HIS  LATE  PASTORAL 

OX  THE  SALISBURY  CONVENTION; 

I 

BY  THE 

CHmMAX  OP  THE  COilAnTTEE  ON  THE  STATE  OF  THE  CHURCH. 


NEW- YORK: 
STANFORD  AND  SWORDS.  137,  BROADWAY. 


1850. 


HOBART  FRES3V 
57,  Ann-Street, 
J.  R.   m'gOWN,  PRINT*36^ 


Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear  Sir  : 

With  extreme  reluctance,  and  after  long,  perhaps 
too  long  delay,  I  have  determined  on  laying  before 
you  the  following  reply  to  your  late  Pastoral  on  the 
Salisbury  Convention.  Most  gladly  indeed  would  I 
have  avoided  this  undertaking  of  a  public  defence 
against  him  who  has  the  charge  over  me ;  but  duty  to 
myself  and  others  with  whom  I  am  connected  in  this 
matter,  forbids  that  we  should  not  exculpate  ourselves 
from  the  charges  which,  with  the  full  force  of  your 
authority,  and  with  so  much  earnestness,  you  have 
urged  against  us.  From  the  accidental  circumstance 
of  being  Chairman  of  the  Committee  whose  acts  are 
reproved,  the  unpleasant  office  of  reply  appears  to 
devolve  on  me,  and  I  must  endeavor  to  fulfil  the  duty 
to  the  best  of  my  ability. 

Beside  this  defence,  how^ever,  there  are  many  points 
of  your  Pastoral  and  other  writings,  to  which  I  would 
beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  as  of  more  importance 
to  us  even,  than  our  personal  defence.  In  your  late 
Pastoral  especially,  we  find  too  many  things  calculated 
to  excite  again,  and  which  have  excited  again,  that 


agitation  and  alarm  which  it  was  hoped  the  proceed^ 
ings  of  the  SaUsbury  Convention  had  effectually 
allayed ;  and  I  write  in  the  hope  you  may  relieve 
our  minds  from  the  difficulties  with  which  they  are 
yet  embarrassed. 

1.  I  begin  with  your  charges  against  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  State  of  the  Church. 

1.  You  accuse  the  Committee,  (pp.  7,  8,)  of  viola- 
ting a  Canon ;  by  bringing  an  implied  charge  of  guilt 
against  the  minority  of  the  clergy,  embracing  the  bishop. 

2.  You  say,  (p.  10,)  "The  bishop  finds  himself 
virtually  arraigned  for  his  teaching  by  a  convention 
assembled  in  a  remote  part  of  his  diocese — called 
with  no  general  knowledge  of  the  intention  of  a  few 
alarmists."  By  which  I  can  understand  nothing  else 
but  that  these  few  alarmists  have  entertained  secretly 
and  insidiously,  and  therefore  dishonestly,  the  deliber- 
ate purpose  of  arraigning  you  at  an  imperfectly  repre- 
sented Convention. 

3.  Again  (pp.  10,  11,)  you  declare,  "The  conclu- 
sion, in  justice  to  them,  is  inevitable,  that  they  believed 
these  things  either  to  have  no  real  existence,  or  to 
come  within  that  class  of  views  and  practices,  about 
which  clergymen  may  differ  and  still  be  faithful  to 
the  Church."  Now,  as  you  have  declared  that  the 
Committee  "  passed  an  implied,"  but  not  on  that 
account  less  oppressive  censure  upon  that  portion 
"of  the  clergy  [the  minority]  with  the  bishop  at  their 
head,"  (p.  9 :)  and  again,  (p.  23,)  as  you  say,  in  reference 
to  the  report  of  the  Committe  : — "  The  charge  upon 
a  portion  of  our  self-denying  ministry  is,  that  through 
carelessness  or  wantonness,  or  some  other  cause,  doc- 


trines  have  been  preached  not  in  accordance  with 
the  Liturgy  and  Articles  of  the  Church,  &c  ;  "  if  we 
take  these  passages  in  connection  with  the  one  quoted 
above  from  page  eleven,  it  must  follow  that  you  de- 
clare that  the  clergymen  composing  the  Committee, 
have  uttered  against  their  brethren  an  accusation 
which  they  did  not  themselves  believe,  or  in  other 
words,  that  they  have  been  guilty  of  a  deliberate  and 
injurious  falsehood. 

4.  On  page  23  you  say,  "  But  this  beam  of  light 
which  God  hath  sent  down  to  cheer  our  hard  labors, 
is  sought  to  be  intercepted  by  the  clouds  of  human 
passion."  Thus  with  human  ire,  unchristian  passion 
of  some  sort,  you  charge  us. 

5.  P.  24.  You  charge  four  of  your  clergy  with 
preaching  false  doctrine,  two  of  them  with  heresy, 
according  to  your  own  definition.  The  clergy- 
man who  is  charged  with  preaching  against  baptis- 
mal regeneration  was,  I  understand,  not  a  member 
of  the  Committee ;  whether  any  of  the  others  are 
members  of  the  Committee  you  have  not  told  us ;  if 
they  are  not,  I  would  respectfully  ask,  if  you  think  it 
quite  just  to  cast  abroad  an  accusation  which  may  be 
fastened  on  the  perfectly  innocent,  or  perfectly  un- 
conscious ?  If  the  accused  do  belong  to  the  Com- 
mittee, here  is  a  most  serious  charge  against  two  of 
them  at  least,  of  heresy,  according  to  your  own 
definition  of  the  term. 

6.  In  the  end  of  the  21st  page,  and  on  the  22nd, 
with  the  note  at  the  bottom  of  the  latter,  you  charge 
us  with  combinations  against  you  ;  of  exciting  against 
you  the  popular  mind ;  of  aiding  and  abetting  unau- 


thorized,  oppressive  and  irresponsible  conventional 
acts;  of  conspiracy  ,  of  banding  together;  of  course, 
of  criminal  banding,  for  none  other  would  be  censura- 
ble ;  and  for  these  acts,  you  tell  us  that  by  "  the  18th 
Canon  of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  we  should  have 
been  deposed  ;  "  thus  giving  us  plain  intimation  that 
you  think  we  deserve  so  severe  a  punishment.  I  have 
said  you  charged  us  with  these  offences  ;  for  not  only 
the  connection  in  which  you  have  introduced  them, 
point  them  to  us,  but  a  private  letter  to  myself,  in 
which  you  directly  charge  me  and  others  with  many 
of  them,  show  for  whom  the  enumeration  of  them 
was  intended. 

7.  In  page  55  you  say  that  "  it  is  easy  to  vociferate 
and  insinuate  general  charges  for  effect ;  plainly 
alluding  to  the  Committee,  and  thus  imputing  to  us 
noisy  clamor  for  popular  applause  or  favor. 

8.  In  page  59  you  cite  a  number  of  rubrics,  and 
by  the  inquiry  you  make  to  each, — What  clergyman 
and  what  priest  does  so  and  so,  plainly  intimate  that 
no  priest  observes  any  of  these  rubrics ;  calling  on 
each  of  us  to  declare,  before  God,  whether  we  do 
observe  them. 

Now,  Sir,  these  accusations  against  the  Committee, 
of  violating  a  canon  of  the  diocese  to  insinuate 
charges  against  their  brethren,  although  they  dis- 
avow doing  so ;  of  not  believing  the  truth  of  what 
they  are  said  to  insinuate  ;  of  being  influenced  in 
this  matter  by  human  passions  ;  of  vociferating  and 
insinuating  general  charges  for  effect ;  of  violating 
numerous  rubrics;  of  conspiring  and  banding  to- 
gether against  their  bishop  ;  and  meriting  for  this,  if 


7 


they  had  their  just  deserts,  according  to  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon,  deposition,  are  grave  accusations. 
Beside,  you  accuse  four  of  the  clergy  of  falsa  doctrine, 
and  two  of  these  of  plain  heresy,  while  three  of  the 
four,  including  those  accused  of  heresy,  may  be  of  the 
Committee.  These  are  serious  charges.  All  these 
accusations  are  made  by  their  bishop  against  clergy- 
men whose  reputation  has  been  hitherto  unsullied, 
who  have  never  before  been  accused  of  heresy,  of  fac- 
tion, or  of  falsehood.  Most  of  them  havinsr  served  the 
Church  for  many  years,  v>'ilh  honor  and  acceptance  at 
least ;  one  of  them,  more  advanced  in  life,  and  of 
longer  standing  in  the  ministry  than  yourself  Surely, 
Sir,  if  you  thought  reproof,  severe  reproof  necessary 
for  a  supposed  attack  upon  your  doctrine  ;  your  re- 
proof has  been  severe  indeed.  I  am  very  unwilling. 
Sir,  to  believe  that  when  you  penned  these  charges 
you  saw  the  full  force  of  your  expressions,  the  plain 
inferences  which  are  to  be  drawn  from  the  words  you 
employ.  The  terms  of  kind  intercourse  on  which 
you  have  lived  with  your  clergy  make  me  hope  other- 
wise, but  the  charges  are  abroad  to  the  world  with 
the  weight  of  your  authority,  and  extension  of  your 
Pastoral ;  and  unless  encountered,  are  likely  to  affect 
the  character  of  the  clergy,  and  produce  a  false  im- 
pression of  the  condition  of  the  diocese. 

Who  will  sa}^  then,  we  are  not  bound  by  every 
consideration  of  duty  to  vindicate  ourselves  from  these 
accusations ;  to  call  on  you.  for  the  proof  of  them, 
and  to  convince  you  that  they  must  be  the  offspring 
of  false  information,  of  groundless  suspicion,  or  of 
both. 


Before  proceeding  to  this  defence,  it  wili  be  ne- 
cessary, however,  to  point  out  some  mistakes  into 
which  you  have  fallen,  and  to  guard  against  some 
expressions  in  your  Pastoral,  likely,  I  think,  to  mis- 
lead your  readers,  and  which  at  the  same  time  have  a 
decided  bearing  on  the  question. 

1.  In  speaking  of  the  Convention  at  Salisbury, 
you  say,  (p.  1.)  "lam  aware  had  you  been  duly  repre- 
sented;"— and  again  (p.  10.)  you  designate  it  as  a 
"Convention  assembled  in  a  remote  part  of  his  dio- 
cese— called  with  no  general  knowledge  of  the 
intention  of  a  few  alarmists,  representing  only  thir- 
teen or  fourteen  parishes  out  of  about  fifty,"  &c.  By 
which  any  one  not  acquainted  with  the  usual  repre- 
sentations of  the  diocese,  might  suppose  the  Salisbury 
Convention  different  in  character  from  any  others, 
I  have  here  subjoined  a  synopsis  of  the  different  Con- 
ventions since  1841,  from  which  it  will  easily  appear, 
that  the  Salisbury  Convention  was  as  well  repre- 
sented as  our  Conventions  usually  are;  and  that  the 
Jay  representation  indeed,  was  fuller  than  that  either 
of  Newbern  or  Wilmington.  Salisbury  was  appointed 
as  the  place  of  the  meeting  of  the  Convention  just  as 
other  places  generally  are,  and  I  would  ask  you,  Sir, 
whether  you  wo^ld  have  preferred  any  other  place 
to  Salisbury,  and  especially  whether  you  would  have 
preferred  Kaleigh,  where  most  probably,  from  its 
central  and  accessible  position,  the  Convention  would 
have  been  best  attended  ;  and  whether  you  seriously 
believe,  the  result,  in  case  of  the  Convention  having 
been  assembled  at  Raleigh,  would  have  been  at  all 
more  favorable  to  your  supposed  views  than  it  was 
at  Salisbury  ? 


9 


Clergv. 

Parishe.s. 

0 

«.i 

.^'^ 
a  . 

-p  J. 

» 

o  Z 
"c 

tltlft 

seats. 

vent 

i 

on 

resei 
onve 

Year. 

Place  of  holding  Convention. 

g| 
O 

J; 

r'  ^ 

as  = 

j 

29 

24 

21 

31 

17 

15 

28 

1842 

Oxford. 

30 

29 

20 

31 

15 

10 

21 

l«43  F:dentoa. 

28 

28 

15 

33 

19 

14 

ou 

1844j  Washington. 

34 

25 

11 

33 

18 

12 

25 

1845  Favetteville. 

3i 

32 

24 

36 

26 

20 

33 

1846  Raleigh. 

29 

28 

20 

40 

20 

12 

24 

1847  N^ewbern. 

38 

37 

24 

49 

29 

12 

22 

18481  Wilmington. 

41 

38 

23 

49 

27 

15 

25 

l849!Salisbin-y. 

I  have  stated  the  number  of  parishes  represented 
at  Salisbury  as  15,  instead  of  13,  the  recorded  num- 
ber ;  since  both  the  parishes  of  the  Church  of  the  Re- 
demption, Lexington,  and  of  St.  Phihp's,  Mocksville, 
were  represented  ;  the  first  by  Dr.  Wm.  R.  Holt,  and 
the  latter  by  Mr.  J.  A.  Lillington.    Dr.  Holt's  name 
appears  on  page  8  of  the  Journal  of  the  Convention  ; 
and  Mr.  Lillington,  although  his  name  does  not  appear 
on  the  journal,  was  well  known  to  have  taken  great 
part  in  the  debates.    In  addition  to  this,  I  must  state, 
that  in  a  communication  I  have  received  from  Mr. 
Mordecai,  a  member  of  this  parish,  of  a  conversation 
he  had  held  with  you  on  the  subject  of  the  troubles  of 
the  diocese,  he  states  :    That  he,  and  others  who  had 
been  elected  delegates  to  the  Salisbury  Convention, 
had  designed  to  attend  that  Convention,  but  in  conse- 
quence of  the  conversation  with  you,  and  especially 
from  your  own  assurance  that  you  would  put  all 
things  right,  he,  as  well  as  the  other  delegates,  changed 
their  purpose,  and  declined  going  to  the  Convention. 
His  words  are  :  "  I  observed  I  would  see  Mr.  Badger 


10 


next  day,  and  inform  him  of  what  had  taken  place, 
and  I  had  no  doubt  he  would  be  glad  to  get  off.  I 
saw  Mr.  Badger,  and  we  all  declined  going  to  the 
Convention,  relying  on  the  bishop's  assurance  that  he 
would  set  all  things  right."  Thus,  Sir,  but  for  your 
interposition,  (I  do  not  mean  improper  interposition, 
for  such  I  do  not  suppose  it,)  there  would  have  been 
a  full  representation  from  this  parish,  making  in  all, 
16  parishes  represented,  and  29  lay  persons,  who 
would,  in  that  case,  have  been  present  at  the  Con- 
vention. 

You  say,  (p.  9.)  "  The  Church,  at  large,  have  a 
right  to  suppose,  that  this  was  an  extreme  measure, 
resorted  to  after  every  canonical  means  had  failed  ; 
while  the  truth  is,  no  canonical  means  had  been  tried. 
No  expostulation  with  the  Bishop  by  the  clerical 
members  of  the  standing  committee,  nor  by  any  other 
body  of  the  clergy.  No  charges  laid  before  him 
against  any  priest  or  deacon,  as  teaching  heretical 
doctrines,  or  practising  forbidden  things.  No  com- 
plaint by  any  rector,  that  he  had  been  annoyed  by 
the  practices  of  any  neighboring  priest,  nor  from  any 
layman,  against  those  of  his  pastor  :  no  word,  save  in 
one  solitary  instance,  of  friendly  counsel  on  the  sub- 
ject, except  as  sought  by  the  Bishop  himself,  from  any 
clergyman,  or  layman,  in  the  diocese.  But,  after  a 
quiet  and  apparently  profitable  visitation  throughout 
the  low  country,  in  v/hich  all  his  sermons,  which  are 
now  said  to  have  produced  excitement,  were  preach- 
ed, with  the  almost  universally  avowed  approbation 
of  clergy  and  laity,  the  Bishop  finds  himself  virtually 
arraigned  for  his  teaching.  "    I  must  suppose  that  in 


11 


these  words,  "  no  canonical  means  had  been  tried/^ 
you  lay  great  stress  on  this  idea;  and  mean  that 
whatever  else  may  have  been  done,  it  was  not  done 
according  to  the  requisitions  of  one  or  more  canons, 
for  otherwise  I  must  suppose  that  in  some  at  least  of 
the  instances  enumerated,  you  had  forgotten  what 
had  actually  occurred ;  and  that  in  others  you  re- 
garded indirect  information  of  the  difficulties  occur- 
ing  in  the  diocese,  as  of  little  consequence.  When 
you  say,  "no  canonical  means  had  been  tried,"  this 
must  imply  either  that  the  means  resorted  to  had 
been  in  opposition  to  a  canon,  or  that  the  means  re- 
quired by  a  canon  had  been  neglected.  But  what 
canon  has  any  bearing  on  the  subject  unless  it  be  the 
4th  of  1832,  of  Standing  Committees ;  in  the  second 
section  of  which  we  find  these  words  ?  "And  they 
may  meet  of  their  own  accord,  and  agreeably  to  their 
own  rules,  when  they  may  be  disposed  to  advise  the 
bishop."  Where  in  this  canon,  is  any  restriction 
which  has  been  broken  through;  any  injunction 
neglected  ?  Yon  say,  "  the  clerical  members  of  the 
Standing  Committee,  nor  by  any  other  body  of  the 
clergy."  Why  the  clerical  mem.bers  of  the  Standing 
Committee,  and  what  other  body  of  the  clergy  is  there, 
to  which  any  canon  assigns  or  even  intimates  any 
such  duty  ? 

When  you  say  then,  No  expostulation  with  the 
Bishop  by  the  clerical  members  of  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee," if  you  speak  of  them  individually,  I  must 
beg  leave  to  say  your  memory  has  not  been  faithful 
to  you  in  this  instance.  The  clerical  members  of  the 
Standing  Committee  are  the  Rev.  Messrs.  Buxton, 


12 


Smedes  and  myself.  What  Mr.  Buxton  may  have 
done,  I  know  not,  but  Mr.  Smedes  has  once  or  twice 
in  my  hearing,  and  often,  as  he  assures  me,  declared 
to  you  his  disapprobation  of  points  of  your  teaching  ; 
and  for  myself,  I  can  truly  say  that  I  have  on  many 
occasions,  expressed  my  decided  dissent  from  several 
of  your  opinions,  as  not  in  accordance  with  the  teach- 
ings of  this  Church  ;  and  especially  in  regard  to  the 
doctrine  of  private  confession  and  private  absolution. 
In  which,  among  other  things,  1  have  observed  to  you, 
that  unless  the  General  Convention  should  pass  a 
canon  affixing  the  severest  penalties  to  betraying  the 
secrets  of  the  confessional,  the  attempt  to  carry  out 
the  system  would  probably  be  attended  with  very 
injurious  consequences,  in  the  occasionally  unguarded 
betrayal  of  those  secrets,  and  the  scandal  resulting 
from  it.  Again,  you  say,  "no  other  body  of  clergy 
yet  at  least  one  other  clergyman  had  remonstrated,  if 
not  expostulated  with  you.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Cheshire, 
in  a  letter,  assures  me  that  he  asked  you,  when  you 
were  in  Scotland  Neck,  in  the  parish  of  Trinity 
Church,  not  to  preach  the  sermon  on  confession 
which  you  had  preached  in  Tarborough.  That  you 
seemed  quite  indignant  at  his  presumption,  said  he 
had  no  right  to  dictate  to  you  what  you  were  to 
preach.  He  declares  he  protested  against  the  doc- 
trine of  your  sermon. 

You  say,  "no  charge  laid  before  you  against  any 
Priest,  or  Deacon,  as  teaching  heretical  doctrine  or 
practising  forbidden  things."  If  a  charge  of  this  sort 
w^as  not  made  to  you  directly,  it  was  so  made  that 
you  arrived  at  the  knowledge  of  it,  for  you  say  (p.  24, 


IS 


in  a  note,)  "  some  expressions  in  a  little  manual,  at 
Valle  Crucis,  were  objected  to  ;"  now  these  expres-- 
sions  as  you  term  them,  were  an  address  to  the 
Virgin  in  the  form  used  in  books  of  Romish  devotion, 
and  a  prayer  to  guardian  angels.  Whether,  sir,  you 
would  term  the  putting  such  kind  of  devotions  in  the 
hands  of  boys  who  had  been  placed  under  the 
guardianship  of  the  Church,  heretical  teaching,  I  can-^ 
not  say,  but  most  certainly  it  is  opposed  to  the  teach- 
ing of  our  Church,  and  is  a  practising  of  forbidden 
things.  Again:  "No  complaint  by  any  layman 
against  the  practices  of  his  pastor."  If  a  complaint 
were  not  made  tc  you  formally,  as  I  believe  it  was 
not,  you  yet  knew,  before  the  Convention,  that  the 
practices  of  a  rector  in  St.  Peter's  Church,  Washing- 
ton, had  been  complained  of;  that  great  agitation 
had  existed  in  that  parish,  and  that  you  had  taken 
notice  of  the  disturbances  by  addressing  a  public  let" 
ter,  through  the  '  Banner  of  the  Cross,'  to  a  prominent 
member  of  the  congregation.  By  this  remark,  I  hope 
it  will  be  clearly  understood,  that  I  do  not  undertake 
to  pass  any  opinion  on  the  merits  of  the  case  ;  to  say 
whether  the  rector  or  those  of  the  congregation  who 
complained  of  his  proceedings,  were  right.  I  speak 
Sir.  but  of  facts,  as  known  to  you.  Again :  "  No  word, 
save  in  one  solitary  instance,  of  friendly  counsel  on 
the  subject,  except  as  sought  by  the  Bishop  himself, 
from  any  clergyman  or  layman  in  the  diocese." 
When  you  say  "  on  the  subject,"  I  suppose  you  mean 
the  subject  of  agitation.  Now,  in  Raleigh  you  had 
full  notice  of  this  subject  from  the  Rev.  Mr.  Smedes, 
a  clergyman,  and  from  Mr.  Mordecai,  a  layman,  for 


14 


the  latter  has  communicated  to  me  iPx  writing,  a  con- 
versation he  had  with  you  on  the  very  subject  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  diocese,  as  I  have  before  remarked. 
In  this  communication  he  spoke  to  you  on  the  subject 
of  your  Pastoral  on  the  Priestly  Office,  of  one  of  your 
sermons  he  had  heard,  and  of  the  difficulties  at  Wash- 
ington, and  informed  you  it  was  the  intention  of  the 
lay  delegates  from  Raleigh  to  bring  the  subject  before 
the  Convention. 

That  you  had  further  notice  of  the  existing  diffi- 
culties, appears  from  the  following  communication 
from  a  brother  clergyman  of  the  highest  reputation « 
The  name  of  the  clergyman  is  not  given  for  reasons 
which  your  correct  feelings  will  cause  you  to  appre- 
ciate. You  will  know  to  w^hom  I  allude,  when  I  state, 
that  the  conversation  between  you  and  him,  took 
place  on  the  Saturday  preceding  the  Convention, 
and  on  your  way  to  Pittsborough.  I  may  further 
state  the  clergyman  is  ready  to  give  his  name  if  it  be 
required.  The  conversation  was  in  the  following 
wwds  as  nearly  as  the  clergyman  can  remember  it : 
"After  I  had  set  before  him,  in  the  miost  serious  and 
feeling  manner,  the  dissatisfaction  and  alarm  perva- 
ding the  diocese  on  account  of  his  new  and  peculiar 
views  of  Church  doctrine  and  practice,  and  had 
warned  him  of  the  determination  on  the  part  of  some 
of  the  mem.bers  elect  of  the  approaching  Convention, 
to  make  it  a  subject  of  inquiry  as  soon  as  they  got 
together,  he  replied  with  something  of  a  smile  at  my 
unnecessary  earnestness  and  uneasiness  : — Brother 
— I  believe  you  are  an  honest  and  clever  fellow,  (or 
words  very  similar,)  but  do  you  know  that  you  are 


15 


the  sixth  or  seventh  person  that  has  told  me  the  same 
thing  ?  I  do  not  fear  any  such  results  as  present 
themselves  to  your  mind.  Whatever  agitation  and 
alarm  may  now  exist  in  the  diocese  will  soon  pass 
away,  and  in  six  months  you  will  be  all  of  my  way 
of  thinking.' " 

You  speak  of  your  sermons  "  being  preached  with 
the  almost  universal  approbation  of  the  clergy  and 
laity."  You  certainly  were  deceived  in  thinking  so  ; 
for  most  certainly  this  was  not  the  case  in  Raleigh ; 
most  certainly  not  the  case  at  Tarborough  or  Scot- 
land Neck ;  most  certainly  not  the  case  at  Wash- 
ington, so  far  as  the  laity  were  concerned. 

You  speak  in  a  note  to  page  10,  of  there  being  but 
one,  and  that  a  sufficiently  notorious  exception. 
Here  are  three  plain  exceptions,  which  of  the  three, 
Sir,  is  the  sufficiently  notorious  exception  ?  and 
why  should  it  alone  be  sufficiently  notorious  ?  Per- 
mit me  to  add,  it  was  hardly  possible  for  you  to  judge 
accurately  of  the  effects  of  your  preaching ;  you 
remain  but  a  short  time  in  each  parish  and  neither 
clergyman  nor  layman  would  be  eager  to  r^ake  known 
to  you  the  beginnings  of  difficulties.  And  here,  sir, 
I  must  seriously,  though  respectfully,  except  to  the 
manner  of  your  introducing  persons  either  for  cen- 
sure, or  in  claiming  them  as  approving  of  your  doctrine 
and  practices. 

You  tell  us  in  the  second  note  to  page  10,  that 
"  the  lay  delegates  from  all  the  old  parishes,  who  had 
heard  the  sermons,  and  were  accustomed  to  represent 
the  Convention,  were,  except  in  two  instances,  utterly 
opposed  to  the  whole  Salisbury  proceeding."  Who 


16 


Wei'e  these  lay  delegates  ?  From  what  parishes  ? 
Were  they  present  at  the  Convention  ?  If  present, 
their  action  at  Convention  showed  no  such  opposition. 
If  not  present,  why  do  you  cite  them  ?  and  how  have 
you  learned  their  opposition  ?  In  like  manner,  when 
you  say,  "  I  doubt  not,  the  greater  part  (i.  e.  of  the 
clergy,)  are  now  united  with  me."  On  what  evidence 
are  you  so  persuaded  ?  and  what  are  the  '  merely  no- 
minal' points  of  differences  in  which  they  dissent  from 
you  ?  I  believe,  sir,  it  is  generally  thought  you  are 
too  sanguine  in  supposing  persons  judge  favorably  of 
your  opinions,  because  from  respect  to  your  person 
and  office,  they  may  not  like  to  express  strongly  in 
your  presence  their  dissent.  On  the  other  hand,  your 
accusations  are — excuse  me  for  saying  so — too  vague 
in  regard  to  the  individuals  against  whom  they  are 
directed.  They  thus  may  be  applied  according  to 
the  impression,  or  notion,  or  caprice,  or  inclination  of 
the  person  reading  your  Pastoral  ;  causing,  very  pro- 
bably, those  who  are  even  in  your  own  opinion  en- 
tirely free  from  censure,  liable  to  have  it  fixed  on 
them  ;  and  preventing  even  the  censured,  through 
entire  unconsciousness  of  deserving  that  censure, 
from  making  their  defence.  Thus  you  tell  us  of  four 
clergymen  who  have  preached  false  doctrine,  but  so 
far  as  your  manner  of  expressing  yourself  is  concerned, 
no  one  by  reading  the  Pastoral  can  certainly  discover 
whether  you  have  yourself  heard  these  sermons,  or 
whether  you  received  your  information  from  others  ? 
from  mere  hearsay  perhaps  ?  Can  it.  Sir,  be  right, 
thus  by  such  an  undirected  accusation  against  four  of 
your  presbyters,  liable  to  be  affixed  to  the  innocent 


17 


as  much  as  to  those  by  you  supposed  guilty,  to  brand 
two  of  them  ^vith  accusations  of  heresy,  thus  ex- 
posing them  to  all  the  obloquy  belonging  to  such  false 
teaching,  and  giving  them  no  opportunity  of  defending 
themselves?  Surely,  Sir,  if  the  committee  had  even 
fully  designed  that  which  you  attribute  to  them,  to  in- 
sinuate charges  against  you  ;  do  you  think  their  action 
more  unkind,  more  injurious,  to  say  the  least  of  it, 
than  yours  ?  Possibly  I  may  be  one  of  these  preachers 
of  false  doctrine,  one  of  these  heretics.  If  so, 
do  me  the  justice  to  state  what  the  heresy  is  ?  On 
w^hat  authority  you  make  the  accusation  ;  the  time 
and  the  circumstances.  "  Accusatio  crimen  desiderat, 
rem  ut  definiat,  hominem  ut  notet,  argumento  jprohet  ; 
teste  confirmet."  But  you  are  so  far  from  coming  up 
to  this  requisition  of  Cicero,  that  you  do  not  even 
mention  the  guilty  person. 

In  pages  58  and  59,  you  tell  us  ;  I  hesitate  not  to 
affirm  "that  no  clergyman  in  this  diocese  is  free  from 
such  a  charge — the  violation  of  the  rubricks — and 
none  less  than  the  members  of  the  Committee  them- 
selves." You  thus  become  the  accuser  of  every  pres- 
byter of  your  diocese  ;  but  how  ?  You  do  not  mark  in 
what  particulars  we  are  each  delinquent ;  but  you  cite 
a  number  of  rubrics,  with  the  demand,  "What 
priest  does  so  and  so  ?  "  leaving  it  to  be  inferred,  that 
every  clergyman  breaks  every  one  of  these  rubrics. 
But  to  this  particular,  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer 
more  fully  hereafter. 

In  page  72,  occurs  another  general  accusation, 
coupled  with  an  imputation  of  bad  motives.  "  Many," 
you  say,  "  who  had  seemed  to  be  quickened  to  a  m.ore 


18 


earnest  self-discipline,  and  aroused  to  efforts  for 
higher  spiritual  life,  were  found  to  have  gradually  re- 
lapsed to  their  former  state,  and  to  be  more  anxious 
for  ease  and  favor  among  men,  than  to  gain,  through 
mucJi  tribulation,  the  eternal  rest  which  remaineth  for 
the  people  of  God."  Who,  Sir,  are  these  many  ?  and 
why  should  you  think  they  were  more  anxious  for 
ease  and  favor  among  men,  than  to  gain  through  much 
tribulation  the  eternal  rest  ? 

II.  I  come  now  to  those  parts  of  your  pastoral 
which  contain  your  censure  of  the  jeport  of  the 
Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church.  Three  sub- 
jects for  inquiry  here  naturally  present  themselves. 

1.  Was  the  act  of  the  Committee  uncanonical  ? 

2.  What  authority  have  the  Committee  for  de- 
claring there  was  agitation  and  alarm. 

3.  Did  the  Committee  by  their  report  intend  to 
pass  any  censure  on  yourself  or  others  ? 

1.  Was  the  act  of  the  Committee  uncanonical  ? 
You  tell  us,  (page  8,)  "  According  to  our  canon  law, 
they  (the  parochial  reports)  contain  all  the  testimony 
in  respect  to  the  state  of  the  Church,  in  the  diocese, 
or  in  any  part  of  it,  which  is  either  legal  or  trust- 
worthy ;  "  and  in  proof  of  this  you  refer  us  to  the 
5th  canon  of  the  diocese.  I  must  here  express  my 
surprise,  not  only  that  you  should  have  thought  this 
canon  violated  by  the  action  of  the  Committee,  but 
that  you  should  have  supposed  it  had  any  reference 
to  such  action.  The  title  of  the  canon  is,  "Con- 
cerning Parochial  Registers  and  Reports  ;  "  and  the 
object  is  declared  to  be  to  give  effect  to  the  40th 
canon  of  the  General  Convention  of  1808,  repealed 


19 


by  the  29th  of  1882,  "Of  the  duty  of  Ministers  to 
keep  a  Register."  Now  in  neither  of  these  canons  is 
one  word  said  of  a  Committee  on  the  state  of  the 
Church.  The  canon  therefore  confers  on  it  no  powers, 
assigns  to  it  no  duties,  restricts  it  within  no  limits. 
How  then,  Sir,  have  you  arrived  at  the  conclusion,  that 
the  only  testimony  which  the  diocese  in  her  canons 
allows  in  such  a  case,  is  a  written  account  of  the 
state  of  each  parish,  given  by  its  minister  in  his  pa- 
rochial report  ?  Why  is  it  the  only  testimony  ? 
Because,  as  you  urge,  the  5th  canon  says,  that  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  each  minister  to  report  annually 
to  the  Bishop,  among  other  things,  a  written  account 
of  the  state  of  the  parish,  which  reports  shall  be  by 
the  bishop  communicated  to  the  Convention,  and  read 
in  their  presence,  in  order  to  promote  a  general  know- 
ledge of  the  state  of  the  Church.  Therefore,  you 
argue,  that  the  Committe  on  the  State  of  the  Church 
could  use  no  other  source  of  information  ;  from  which 
the  inference  must  be  drawn  that  the  word  '  promote* 
does  not  mean  to  forward  or  advance,  but  to  be  the 
sole  source.  Nay,  as  not  one  word  is  said  in  the  whole 
canon,  of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church, 
not  one  hint  given  of  the  existence  of  such  a  body ; 
and  the  Convention  is  the  body  before  whom  these 
reports  are  laid;  it  follows,  from  your  reasoning,  that 
the  parochial  reports  are  the  sole  means  of  informa- 
tion, the  sole  testimony  which  the  Convention  can 
canonically  have  of  the  state  of  the  Church,  and  that 
your  own  journal  is  a  most  uncanonical  act.  So  are 
the  reports  of  the  Missionary  and  Standing  Commit- 
tees, and,  indeed,  so  are  all  the  other  sources  of  in- 


20 


formation  which  have  usually  been  presented  to  the 
Convention,  in  order  to  promote  a  general  knowledge 
of  the  state  of  the  Church. 

But,  Sir,  how  can  this  inference  be  possibly  cor- 
rect ?  Your  own  journal  is  always  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church.  According 
to  you,  how  uncanonical  an  act  is  this  !  Pardon  me 
for  saying  you  appear  to  have  had  some  doubts  on 
this  point  yourself ;  you  do  not  appear  to  have  been 
perfectly  satisfied  with  your  own  reasoning  ;  for  after 
declaring  that  the  parochial  reports  are  the  only  legal 
and  trustworthy  testimony,  you  add  your  own  testi- 
mony to  that  of  the  parochial  reports,  and  say,  "  the 
only  persons  allowed  by  canon  to  testify,  viz  :  the  pa- 
rochial clergy  and  the  bishop."  Before  it  was  the 
parochial  reports  solely,  now  it  is  the  parochial  clergy 
and  the  bishop.  But  let  it  be  observed,  that  not  one 
syllable  is  said  in  the  canon  respecting  the  bishop; 
and  if  every  thing  except  what  is  mentioned  by  the 
canon  be  excluded,  then  the  bishop's  journal,  and  all 
sources  of  information  which  he  can  impart,  are  ex- 
cluded, not  merely  from  the  committee,  but  from  the 
Convention  itself  Are  you  prepared  for  this  con- 
clusion ? 

But,  secondly,  so  far  from  being  correct  is  your 
opinion  that  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the 
Church  are  restricted  to  the  parochial  reports,  or 
even  to  them  and  your  journal,  or  even  to  these  and 
documentary  evidence,  that  we  find  this  Committee, 
on  other  occasions  stating  it  as  an  implied  part  of 
their  duty,  to  resort  to  other  sources  of  information. 
In  the  Convention  of  1839,  the  Rev.  J.  Singletary, 


til 

Chairman  of  the  Committee,  says,  "  They  have  exam* 
ined  the  documents  referred  to  them,  and  all  other  in- 
formation within  their  reach."  And  again,  in  1840, 
the  Rev.  Thos.  Davis,  as  Chairman,  reports,  "  The 
Committee  have  carefully  examined  into  the  state  of 
the  Church,  as  far  as  they  have  been  enabled  to  do  so 
from  the  documents  referred  to  them,  and  other 
sources  within  their  reach." 

But  these  clergymen  were  held  in  no  ordinary 
esteem  in  the  diocese ;  sad  for  the  diocese,  that  one 
has  been  lost  to  us  by  death,  the  other  by  removal. 

According  to  this  principle  have  committees  on 
the  State  of  the  Church  frequently  acted.  In  1839 
there  is  notice  of  an  action  of  the  General  Conven- 
tion not  mentioned  in  the  parochial  reports.  In  1840 
regret  is  expressed  at  the  thin  attendance  of  lay 
delegates,  mentioned  neither  by  the  parochial  clergy 
nor  the  Bishop.  And  again,  it  will  be  found  on 
various  occasions,  the  Committee  on  the  State  of  the 
Church  have  carried  out  this  principle. 

The  report  of  1848  speaks  of  an  infidel  theory  pre- 
vailing. Where  do  the  parochial  reports  speak  of 
such  a  theory  in  a  single  parish  ?  In  the  same  report 
we  learn  that  it  is  understood  that  the  religious  house 
at  Valle  Crucis  will  henceforth  devote  its  energies  to 
the  instruction  of  candidates.  Where  do  the  paro- 
chial reports  state  this?  In  the  report  of  1840  we 
find  these  words  :  "Finally,  throughout  the  Church 
generally,  and  in  this  Convention  especially,  we  are 
greeted  with  the  cheering  spectacle  of  unity  of  faith, 
harmony  of  love,  the  spirit  of  zeal  and  of  a  sound 
mind."    If  the  Committe  may  not  testify  of  agitation 


22 


and  alarm,  why  should  they  testify  of  an  opposite 
state,  of  harmony  and  peace  ? 

2.  What  authority  had  the  Committee  for  stating 
there  was  agitation  and  alarm  in  the  Diocese  ? 

From  your  manner  of  speaking  on  the  point,  it 
might  be  difficult  at  first  to  determine,  whether  you 
meant  to  deny  the  fact  of  agitation  and  alarm,  or  only 
the  legality,  the  sufficiency,  or  propriety  of  the  testi- 
mony upon  which  it  is  asserted.  In  the  whole  of  your 
first  head  there  is  this  obscurity,  and  at  page  10  you 
speak  of  there  being  a  few  alarmists  ;  while  on  the 
other  hand,  in  your  charge  to  the  clergy  at  the  Con- 
vention, you  acknowledge  the  existence  both  of  ex- 
citement and  agitation,  on  account  of  doctrines  and 
practices.  You  not  only  do  not  deny  the  truth  of 
the  Committee's  assertion,  but  yourself  state  that  the 
Diocese  has  been  agitated  of  late  on  a  particular 
question. 

On  page  25,  of  your  late  Pastoral,  you  speak  of  the 
doctrine  of  the  necessity  of  priestly  absolution,  hav- 
ing, "it  is  said  called  up  around  your  Bishop,  so  many 
palefaces  and  fainting  hearts."  And  again,  page  69, 
you  speak  of  the  charge  now  in  busy  circulation,  of 
a  concealed  purpose  on  your  part  of  bringing  any 
foreign  system  or  influence  upon  the  diocese."  Now 
as  it  can  by  no  possibility  of  construction,  be  alleged 
that  the  Committee  meant  to  charge  or  insinuate, 
that  the  doctrine  of  priestly  absolution  had  called  up 
around  you  pale  faces  and  fainting  hearts ;  or  that 
you  had  a  concealed  purpose  of  bringing  in  any 
foreign  influence,  it  follows,  without  doubt,  that  you 
do  recognize  the  existence  of  agitation  and  alarm ; 


23 


and  that  what  you  have  said  on  this  head,  on  page  ? 
and  8,  was  not  designed  to  assail  the  truth  of  the  as- 
sertion, but  only  the  legality,  or  sufficiency,  or  pro- 
priety  of  the  Committee's  testimony.  To  this  point 
1  shall  presently  come. 

The  fact  of  agitation  and  alarm,  indeed,  was  so 
certain,  so  manifest,  as  to  be  undeniable  by  any  one^ 
nor  has  it  been  denied.  The  report  of  the  Committee 
was  on  that  point  received  without  hesitation,  with- 
out one  word  of  opposition,  or  even  of  comment. 

You  inquire,  page  7,  ''But  upon  what  testi- 
mony I  would  ask  is  this  assertion  made,  i.  e.,  of  agi- 
tation and  alarm  ?  "  I  answer  upon  the  testimony  of 
the  members  of  the  Committe,  speaking  of  facts  too 
notorious  to  be  denied,  and  therefore  by  no  one 
denied,  and  assented  to  by  yourself  But  you  argue, 
page  8,  that  to  say  that  there  is  such  agitation 
and  alarm,  when  the  parochial  clergy,  to  a  man,  are 
silent  on  the  subject,  is  to  say  that  they  have  been 
culpably  negligent  in  a  canonically  prescribed  and 
commanded  duty.  To  which  I  answer,  that  if  your 
mference  be  true,  then  without  any  sort  of  question, 
some  at  least  of  the  parochial  clergy  were  culpably 
negligent ;  for  there  was  agitation  and  alarm,  at  least 
in  some  parishes;  there  was  in  Christ's  Church, 
Raleigh,  as  Mr.  Mordecai's  communication  shows. 
There  was  in  St.  Peter's  Church,  Washington,  as  the 
difficulties  existing  between  the  rector  and  the  con- 
gregation, known  throughout  the  State,  shows.  There 
was  agitation  and  alarm  in  the  parishes  of  Calvary 
Church,  Tarborough,  and  Trinity  Church,  Scotland 
Neck,  as  the  Rev.  Mr.  Cheshire  in  his  letter  to  me 


24 


shows ;  there  was  agitation  at  least,  if  not  alarm,  in 
Wilksborough,  your  own  Journal  shows,  (p»  10  of  Jour- 
nal,) and  in  the  same  Journal,  you  yourself  show  that 
some  minds  had  been  disturbed  by  "  unfoundedvnmoxs," 
as  you  consider  them,  "  of  doctrines  taught  and  prac- 
tice existing,  not  in  accordance  with  the  principles  and 
usages  of  the  Church."  In  none  of  the  reports  from 
these  parishes,  however,  is  there  any  notice  of  agita- 
tion and  alarm.  But  did  all  these  clergymen  violate 
their  duty,  by  not  taking  notice  of  this  agitation  and 
alarm  ?  In  making  up  the  parochial  reports  is  no 
discretion  to  be  used  ?  Suppose  a  slanderous  story 
were  afloat  in  the  parish,  which  deeply  affected  the 
character  of  some  eminent  person  in  the  community, 
perhaps  the  Bishop  himself,  and  which  produced  at 
the  time  very  great  agitation  and  alarm ;  do  you 
think  it  would  be  decent  or  proper,  in  a  clergyman, 
to  make  such  a  story  part  of  his  parochial  report  ?  I 
know  not  how  other  clergymen  may  have  viewed 
the  subject,  but  I  confess  it  did  not  once  occur  to  my 
mind,  that  it  would  be  a  proper  subject  to  introduce 
into  my  parochial  report ;  I  should  have  thought  it  very 
ill-advised  to  do  so,  lest  I  might  thereby  increase  the 
agitation  and  alarm  which  already  existed,  and  which, 
as  will  presently  be  seen,  it  was  the  object  of  the 
Committee  to  allay. 

3,  Did  the  Committee  in  their  report  intend  to 
pass  any  censure  on  yourself  or  others  ?  As  soon  as 
I  thought  of  replying  to  your  Pastoral,  I  proposed  to 
the  other  members  of  the  Committee  the  following 
inquiries. 

1,  Was  it  the  intention  of  the  Committee  to  make 


§5 


or  insinuate  any  charge  in  their  report  against  the 
bishop  or  any  one  of  the  cleray  ? 

2.  During  the  sittings  of  the  Convention,  was  the 
Bishop's  name  introduced  in  any  act,  or  debate,  with 
any  disparaging  reflections  on  himseif  or  his  doc- 
trines ?  Was  it  introduced  at  all  during  his  absence, 
till  the  delivery  of  his  Charge  ? 

3.  Was  the  Bishop  spoken  of  disparagingly  in 
respect  to  his  person  or  doctrine  during  the  meetings 
of  the  Committee  ?    Was  he  spoken  of  at  all  ? 

4.  What  did  you  understand  to  be  the  object  of 
the  Committee  in  making  the  report  ? — 

Answer  to  these  Inquiries  by  the  Rev,  Mr.  McCrae  : 

1.  "It  was  not  my  intention  as  a  member  of 
the  Committee  on  the  state  of  the  Church,  (nor  was 
it,  I  believe,  the  intention  of  any  member  thereof,)  to 
make  or  insinuate  any  charge  against  the  Bishop  or 
any  of  the  clergy,  in  their  report  to  the  Convention. 

2.  I  did  not  hear,  during  the  sittings  of  the  Con- 
vention, the  Bishop's  name  introduced  jn  any  shape 
or  way,  with  any  disparaging  reflections  either  on 
himself  or  his  doctrine.  Nor  was  it  introduced  at  all 
till  the  delivery  of  his  Charge. 

3.  The  Bishop  was  not  spoken  of  disparagingly 
either  as  regards  his  person  or  doctrines  during  the 
meetings  of  the  Committee.  I  have  no  recollection 
that  he  was  spoken  of  at  all.'' 

4.  I  understood  the  intention  of  the  Committee 
in  making  their  report  to  be  this, — to  assure  the 
Church  at  large  of  the  adherence  of  the  greater  part 
of  the  clergy  in  the  diocese  to  the  doctrine  and 
worship  of  the  Church  as  it  exists. 

2 


m 

1  showed  the  Bishop  the  report  of  the  Comrmttee 
on  the  state  of  the  Church  ;  and  he  expressed  not  the 
slightest  disapprobation  of  its  contents.  (Dr.  Drane 
was  also  present.) 

I  might  go  on  to  say  that  when  the  Bishop  de- 
livered me  his  Charge  to  read  to  the  Convention,  it 
was  upon  this  condition,  av,d  this  alone,  (the  itahcs 
are  Mr.  McCrae's,)  that  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  the  state  of  the  Church  should  remain  unaltered — - 
and  that  no  debate  should  be  suffered  to  take  place 
in  regard  to  his  Charge.  If  the  report  had  been 
altered,  or  had  any  debate  arisen  on  the  Charge,  then 
I  was  instructed  to  withdraw  it ;  not  without.  To 
this  Mr,  Smedes  will  also  testify."  * 

The  answer  of  the  Rev,-  Mr.  Huske,  Morganton. 

1.  As  far  as  I  know  it  was  not.  In  regard  to  myself, 
personally,  I  can  say,  that  if  I  had  thought  such  was  the 
intention  of  the  report,  I  should  have  dissented  from  it. 

2.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  Bishop's  name 
was  introduced  at  all  before  his  Charge.  Cer- 
tainly not  as  I  heard  with  any  disparaging  reflections 
on  himself  or  his  doctrine. 

3.  I  do  not  remember  that  the  Bishop  wag 
spoken  of  at  all  in  the  Committee.  I  will  state  my 
recollection  of  what  occurred.  After  settling  the 
statistical  portion  of  the  report,  the  question  was 
asked  by  yourself,  I  think,  whether  the  matters  which 
were  discussed  privately  among  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  relating  to  alleged  departures  from  the 

*  The  Rev.  Mr.  Smedes,  on  showing  him  Mn  McCrae's  letter, 
has  assented  to  the  truth  of  the  above  statement. 


27 


doctrines  of  the  Church,  should  be  spoken  of  in  the 
report.  Upon  this,  the  members  of  the  Committee 
severally  assented  to  the  propriety  of  making  some 
allusion  to  those  matters.  This  is  all  that  occurred 
so  far  as  I  recollect. 

4.  I  supposed  that  their  object  was,  inas- 
much as  they  were  a  Committee  on  the  State  of  the 
Church,  to  state  facts  of  deep  interest  to  the  Church 
at  large,  and  to  give  assurance  of  general  fidelity  to 
the  Church  among  the  clergy,  in  order  to  quiet  ex- 
citement ;  instead  of  throwing  odium  upon  the  Bishop 
or  any  of  their  brethren. 

I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood,  that  at  that 
time,  so  far  from  intending  by  assent  to  that  report,  to 
sit  in  judgment  upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Bishop,  or  the 
doctrine  or  character  of  any  of  the  clergy,  I  was  not 
willing  to  express  even  a  private  opinion ;  I  wanted 
to  hear  facts,  if  there  were  any.  But  I  do  not  see 
why  a  general  affirmation,  accompanied  with  an  ex- 
press disclaimer  of  intention  to  judge  any  one,  such 
as  that  in  the  report,  should  be  considered  improper. 
The  truth  is,  knowing  the  strong  feeling  among  cer- 
tain members  of  the  Convention,  I  was  afraid  there 
would  be  intemperate  resolutions  introduced,  and  was 
therefore  much  in  hopes,  if  the  Committee  on  the 
State  of  the  Church  should  notice  the  subject  in  a 
proper  spirit,  it  might  prevent  hasty  action  in  Con- 
vention. 

Answer  hy  the  Rev.  Dr.  Drane, 

To  Question  1. — No.  The  Committee  were,  I 
believe,  unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  this  was  not 


33 


our  business,  and  the  report  itself  sliows  that  it  was 
studiously  avoided. 

To  Question  2. — It  was  not  so  far  as  I  heard  or 
believed. 

To  Question  3. — No.  It  was  not. 

To  Question  4. — It  was  believed  by  the  Committee 
that  an  impression  was  extensively  prevalent  in  the 
diocese,  that  many  of  the  clergy  were  inclined  to 
favor  the  introduction  of  Puseyitish  or  Popish  doc- 
trines and  practices ;  and  that  this  impression,  if 
suffered  to  go  uncorrected,  would  injure  the  influence 
of  the  clergy  and  prove  disastrous  to  the  best  inter* 
estsof  the  Church.  Acting  as  a  Committee  on  the 
state  of  the  Church,  and  with  indubitable  evidence 
before  us  of  agitation  and  alarm  among  the  members, 
we  felt  it  to  be  our  duty  to  note  this  state  of  things  ; 
and  with  the  view  of  allaying  excitement  and  restor- 
ing tranquillity,  we  felt  ourselves  imperiously  called 
upon  to  assure  the  diocese,  that  in  our  *belief,  the 
clergy  as  a  body,  were  totally  opposed  to  the  intro- 
duction of  any  doctrines  or  practices  not  sanctioned 
by  the  standards  of  the  Church.  This,  at  least,  was 
my  own  view  of  the  object  of  the  report,  and  I  believe 
it  was  substantially  the  view  of  every  other  member 
of  the  Committee. 

Answer  hy  the  Rev.  Mr.  Forbes, 

To  Question  1. — The  intention  of  the  Committee 
was  to  assure  the  members  of  the  Church,  that 
although  there  might  be  some  in  the  diocese,  who 
were  teaching  and  practising  these  customs  ;  yet  the 
far  greater  part  of  the  clergy  were   opposed,  &c.,"  as 


29 


the  report  expresses  it.  When  I  say  **  might  be,'*  I 
mean  that  the  determining  of  this  point  was  not 
within  the  province  of  the  Committee. 

To  Question  2. — To  this  I  answer,  No!  not  so  far 
as  I  can  recollect,  nor  was  it  introduced  at  all  before 
the  delivery  of  his  Charge,  to  be  the  subject  of  remark 
or  discussion,  even  if  it  were  mentioned  at  all,  and  I  do 
not  remember  hearing  it. 

To  Question  3. — I  think  it  was  ;  for  it  would  have 
been  strange,  if  in  speaking  of  the  affairs  of  the 
Church,  the  name  of  the  Bishop,  whose  report  we 
had  of  his  duties,  should  not  have  been  even  men- 
tioned :  but  as  to  the  main  point  of  the  question, 
"  Was  he  spoken  disparagingly  of  as  regards  his  per- 
son or  doctrine,  &c.''    No,  not  in  my  opinion. 

To  Question  4. — I  understood  it  to  be  the  sole 
object  of  the  Committee  to  produce  quietness  and 
peace  by  assuring  the  diocese  at  large  that  there  was 
no  danger  that  the  Church  would  be  united  or  even 
assimilated  to  the  Romish  Communion. 

With  respect  to  the  Rev.  Mr.  Forbes,  candor 
requires  me  here  to  state  that  his  notion  of  the  report,  as 
far  as  I  have  understood  and  been  able  to  condense  the 
substance  of  his  communication  to  me,  in  explanation 
of  his  answer  to  the  first  question,  is  much  stronger 
than  that  of  the  other  members  of  the  Committee. 

His  view  is,  that  although  the  object  of  the  Com- 
mittee was  not  to  accuse  any  one  of  practices  or  doc- 
trines contrary  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  but 
to  allay  agitation,  yet,  as  far  as  he  was  concerned,  he 
wished  that  from  the  report  of  the  Committee,  the 


90 


inference  should  be  drawn  that  such  doctrines  had 
been  taught  and  such  practices  had  existed. 

From  these  answers,  the  following  conclusions, 
must,  it  appears  to  me,  be  most  certainly  drawn. 
First,  that  there  was  no  set,  deliberate  purpose  on 
the  part  of  the  Committee  as  a  body,  to  bring  forward 
or  insinuate  charges  against  any  one. 

Mr.  Forbes  differs  indeed  from  the  rest  of  the 
Committee  on  two  points,  the  mention  of  your  name 
during  the  meetings  of  the  Committee,  and  his  own 
peculiar  views  on  the  bearing  which  he  wished  the 
report  to  have  on  the  aberrations  in  doctrine  and 
practice,  supposed  by  many  in  the  diocese  to  exist, 
and  occasioning  agitation  and  alarm.  But  the  men- 
tion of  your  name  is  connected  by  Mr.  Forbes  with 
your  Journal,  and  not  with  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee. This  may  have  been  the  case,  though  I  have 
no  recollection  of  even  such  mention  of  your  name. 
But  certainly,  most  contrary  to  fact  was  the  informa- 
tion you  must  have  received,  and  on  which  doubtless 
you  rested  your  assertion,  (p.  9,)  "  that  both  in  Con- 
vention and  in  the  Committee,  you  were  named  as 
the  chief  offender."  For  who  could  know  any  thing 
of  what  was  done  during  the  meetings  of  the  Com- 
mittee, but  a  member  of  the  Committee.  Now  it  is 
most  certain  no  member  of  the  Committee  could 
have  told  you  so  ;  judge  therefore  yourself.  Sir,  what 
little  foundation  your  informer  could  have  had  for 
what  he  told  you.  It  also  appears  that  there  could 
have  been  no  regular,  formed  plan  discussed  and 
agreed  upon  by  the  Committee,  of  charging  any  one, 
or  even  insinuating  a  charg3  against  any  one.  That 


31 


unless  Mr.  Forbes  be  an  exception,  it  was  not  the 
purpose  of  any  one  individually  to  do  so.  For  I 
fully  agree  with  the  rest  of  the  Committee  on  this 
point. 

Secondly,  It  is  also  most  manifest  that  you  were 
not  spoken  of  in  the  Convention  as  the  chief  offender ; 
and  that  whoever  told  you  so,  did  not  tell  you  the 
truth.  Indeed,  how  should  you  have  been  spoken  of? 
what  was  there  to  call  up  the  mention  of  your  name, 
previous  to  the  delivery  cf  your  Charge?  That 
Charge  was  received  without  one  word  of  dissent. 
Why  then  should  you  have  been  spoken  of  as  the 
chief  offender  ?  It  is  therefore  so  far  from  being  no- 
torious  that  you  were  nam>ed  as  the  chief  offender  in 
Convention  and  Committee,  that  there  is  (if  the  word 
of  such  men  as  constituted  the  Committee  can  be 
relied  on)  most  unquestionable  evidence  to  the  direct 
contrarv- 

But  what  then  was  the  object  of  the  Committee  ? 
It  is  easily  stated.  Great  agitation  and  alarm  existed 
in  the  diocese.  Some  of  the  Com.mittee  had  wit- 
nessed this  in  their  own  parishes  ;  and  had  heard  of 
it  in  others.  The  apprehension  also  began  to  be 
entertained,  and  was  expressed,  that  many  of  the 
clergy  were  fast  inclining  towards  Romanizing  views. 
To  allay  this  excitement,  to  remove  this  impression, 
was  the  object  of  the  Committee.  Was  it  not  a 
lawful  object  ?  Was  it  not  a  proper  object  ?  Was 
it  not  a  necessary  duty  ?  And  how  could  this  object 
be  accomplished,  this  duty  be  performed,  so  vrell  or 
indeed  at  all,  unless  by  such  a  report  ?  I  have  heard 
the  report  censured,  but  assuredly  not  for  crimina- 


32 

tion  direct  or  implied,  not  for  severity,  not  for 
illegality,  not  for  injustice — (t/ou  are  the  first  person 
I  have  heard  to  do  this) — but  for  unnecesvsary  modera- 
tion. Perhaps  there  may  have  been  something  of  this 
unnecessary  moderation,  for  perhaps  the  Committee 
might  have  declared  the  character  of  the  supposed 
erroneous  doctrine  and  irregular  practices,  but  so 
studious  were  they  to  avoid  any  thing  like  crimina- 
tion, that  they  mentioned  these  things,  in  the  most 
general  terms  possible.  Let  me  add  one  occurrence 
to  show  what  was  the  feeling  of  the  Committee  on 
this  subject.  After  the  report  was  acted  on  and 
passed  by  the  Committee,  but  before  it  was  presented 
to  the  Convention,  the  Rev.  Mr.  Huske  came  to  me 
and  observed,  he  thought  there  was  one  expression 
.  which  might  appear  to  reflect  on  the  Society  of  the 
Holy  Cross,  The  concluding  part  of  the  report  was 
originally  wwded  in  the  following  manner :  The 
Committee  are  happy  to  say  they  have  assurance, 
&LC.  He  observed  that  he  thought  the  words  "  happy 
to  say/'  seemed  to  imply  condemnation  of  the  Society, 
and  might  be  so  construed.  I  answered,  they  might 
be  so  construed  ;  that  I  would  therefore  call  the  Com- 
mittee together  and  propose  to  them  their  omission. 
This  was  done,  and  with  unanimous  consent  the 
words  were  stricken  out.  Mr.  Huske,  in  a  letter  to 
me,  thus  states  [n's  remembrance  of  the  transaction. 
His  words  are  :  "  I  thought  this  (the  expression  are 
happy)  implied  opposition  to  the  Society,  which 
althougli  I  have  ahvays  felt  it,  I  did  not  think  should 
be  expressed  on  that  occasion."  Considering  what 
^    you  represent  the  Society  to  have  been,  the  Com- 


33 


mittee,  if  not  with  propriety,  might  at  least  with  truths 
have  declared  that  they  were  happy  to  be  assured  of 
its  dissolution. 

But  you  ask,  by  what  authority  do  they  touch 
them,  (i.e.  these  errors  in  doctrine,  and  irregularities 
in  practice,)  at  all  ?  By  what  authority  do  they  in- 
directly define  them  and  assert  their  existence  in  an 
atteaipted  exculpation  of  the  far  greater  part ;  and 
hence  in  an  implied  charge  of  guilt  against  the  mi- 
nority of  the  clergy,  em_bracing  the  Bishop  of  the 
diocese  ? 

To  these  questions  the  answer  is  very  easy.  The 
object  of  the  Committee  was  not  to  accuse  any  one, 
nor  to  charge,  nor  to  insinuate  a  charge  against  any 
one.  As  a  Committee  on  the  state  of  the  Church, 
they  considered  it  their  bounden  duty  to  take  notice 
of  the  difficulties,  the  agitation,  and  the  alarm,  exist- 
ing in  the  diocese,  for  the  purpose,  if  possible,  of 
allaying  that  agitation  and  alarm,  on  sufficient  and 
just  grounds,  namely,  the  adherence  of  the  clergy 
generally  to  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the 
Church. 

But  why,  it  may  be  asked,  did  not  the  Committee 
mclude  all  the  clergy  ?  They  did  not,  because  they 
could  not.  It  was  generally  believed  by  most  of  the 
members  of  the  Committee,  I  do  not  suppose  I  am 
going  too  far  in  saying,  by  all  the  mem.bers  of  the 
Committee,  that  the  doctrines  and  practices  of  the 
Church  had  been  departed  from.  Whether  this 
belief  was  well  founded,  is  another  matter,  but  un- 
questionably it  did  exist,  and  if  in  doing  their  duty 
by  taking  notice  of  the  alarm,  and  endeavoring  to 
2* 


34 


allay  it,  the  minds  of  the  community  were  directed 
to  certain  persons,  this  could  not  be  avoided.  What 
they  were  bound  to  do,  they  were  bound  to  do  truth- 
fully ;  and  if  such  consequences  resulted,  it  was  not 
the  fault  of  the  Committee.  The  distinction  ought 
clearly  to  be  observed  between  the  intention  of  the 
Committee  and  the  consequences  resulting  from  their 
action.  If  it  was  the  duty  of  the  Committee  to  take 
notice  of  the  agitation  and  alarm  in  the  diocese, 
and  of  the  supposed  causes  thereof,  for  the  purpose 
of  allaying  this  agitation  and  alarm  ;  if  in  the  man- 
ner of  discharging  their  duty  they  acted  with  all 
proper  reserve ;  if  they  violated  no  law  of  the 
Church ;  no  justly  required  respect  towards  yourself, 
or  courtesy  towards  their  brethren  ;  but  if  at  the 
same  time,  owing  to  circumstances  which  the  Com- 
mittee could  not  control,  inferences  unfavorable  to 
any  persons  were  drawn  by  others,  surely  this  ought 
not  to  be  imputed  to  the  Committee  as  their  fault. 

Suppose  the  teachings  of  your  Pastoral  of  the 
Priestly  Office,  and  your  sermons,  to  have  not  been  in 
accordance  with  the  teachings  of  the  Church  ;  the 
Committee  could  not  say  they  were  ;  or  suppose  your 
teaching  to  have  been  misunderstood — (and  if  not 
opposed  to  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  how  liable  it 
is  to  be  misunderstood,  will  appear  from  the  answers 
already  made  to  it  by  clear  and  strong-minded  men.) 
Suppose  the  Committee,  or  even  a  portion  of  the  Com- 
mittee, to  have  believed  your  teaching  erroneous, 
though  it  were  in  reality  not  so  ;  while  they  are  bound 
studiously  to  avoid  pronouncing  an  opinion  against, 
could  they  pronounce  in  favor  of  such  teaching  ? 


35 


But  let  it  be  observed,  this  agitation  and  alarm  had 
been  excited  by  other  causes  than  the  preaching  of 
your  sermons,  or  the  publication  of  your  Pastoral. 
Remarks  have  been  made  by  you  in  public  and  pri- 
vate, misunderstood,  if  you  please,  but  so  understood 
as  to  create  unfavorable  impressions  of  your  attach- 
ment to  this  Church,  our  branch  of  the  Catholic 
Church — 'impressions  were  abroad  of  teachings  and 
practices  at  Valle  Crucis,  by  no  means  in  accordance 
with  the  doctrines  and  requirements  of  the  Church — 
(subsequent  disclosures  have  proved  that  these  im- 
pressions were  too  well  founded) — reports  were 
afloat  of  practices  and  teaching  in  other  quar- 
ters, of  the  same  faulty  character,  which  may  have 
been  misunderstood.  All  these  had  produced  their 
effects  on  the  public  mind.  To  what  extent 
there  was  adequate  cause  for  these  effects — whether 
the  apprehensions  entertained  of  Romanizing  tenden- 
cies in  some  of  the  clergy,  were  justly  entertained,  or 
to  what  degree  justly  entertained,  I  do  not  here  un- 
dertake to  determine.  But  the  effects  were  produced  ; 
the  apprehensions  were  entertained  ;  and  the  Commit- 
tee, as  a  Committee  on  the  State  of  the  Church,  be- 
lieving it  to  be  their  duty,  wished  to  allay  this  appre- 
hension, so  far  as  in  truth  they  could.  I  ask  what 
law  did  they  violate  ?  What  ties  of  fellowship  did 
they  break  ?  What  lawful  authority  did  they  resist  ? 
None  :  they  did  but  their  duty,  and  for  the  dis- 
charge of  this  duty,  why  should  they  be  so  censured  ? 
The  Committee  could  not  declare  that  there  was  no 
ground  for  this  agitation  and  alarm,  for  the  conviction 
on  the  minds  of  many,  as  far  as  I  know  of  all  of  them, 
was  strong,  that  there  was  ground  for  agitation  and 


36 


alarm.  They  could  not  declare  that  there  was  no 
clergyman  in  the  diocese  who  had  never  preached 
doctrines  not  in  accordance  with  the  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  had  never  introduced  ceremonies  unauthor- 
ized by  this  Church,  or,  in  plain  violation  of  its  ru- 
brics. But  with  respect  to  the  far  greater  part  of  the 
clergy,  they  could  not  discover  in  a  free  conversation 
with  their  brethren  at  the  Convention,  that  there  was 
any  reason  to  suspect  them  of  a  departure  from  the 
doctrines  and  practices  of  the  Church  ;  and  the  Con- 
mittee,  therefore,  in  coming  together,  had  very  little 
else  to  do,  but  to  propose  what  they  thought  would 
be  sufficient  to  allay  excitement  and  remove  false  im- 
pressions ;  and  I  have  no  recollection  that  during  the 
meetings  of  the  Committee,  there  was  any  discussion 
of  the  merits  or  demerits  of  any  of  the  brethren. 
You  ask,  (p.  10,)  "what  evidence  had  the  greater 
part  of  the  clergy  given  of  their  peculiar  and  exemplary 
fidelity  ?  Peculiar  and  exemplary  fidelity  are  words 
entirely  your  own,  and  pardon  me  for  saying,  have 
the  appearance  of  sarcasm.  But  the  Committee  have 
claimed  for  their  brethren  no  such  peculiar  and  ex- 
emplary  fidelity,  but  only  such  adherence  to  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Church  to  which  they  belong,  as  was  to 
be  expected  from  them.  Hov/  truly  the  Committee 
have  represented  their  brethren,  your  own  acts  will 
show.  "  You  have  cast  your  thoughts  back,"  you 
say,  "over  the  last  year,  and  you  found  four  sermons 
objected  to."  Whether  justly  objected  to ;  whether 
by  mere  rumor  ;  whether  the  preachers  of  the  sermons 
objected  to,  had  any  opportunity  of  defending  them- 
selves ;  whether  you  believed  the  objections  well 


37 


founded  ;  whether  yourself  had  heard  any  of  the  ser^ 
mons  ;  whether,  after  all,  these  objections  were  any  - 
thing more  than  f^fst  Trrs^oevTu,  to  which  no  sort  of 
credit  was  to  be  given,  you  do  not  tell  us.  But  let  us 
admit  the  charge  to  be  most  indubitably  well-founded. 
Then  to  these  four  let  us  suppose  there  might  possibly 
be  three  or  four  more  whose  teachings  and  practices 
have  been  of  a  Romanizing  character  ;  and  still  you 
have  the  far  greater  part  ol'  the  clergy,  against  whom 
no  imputation  of  false  doctrine  lies. 

You  tell  us  (p.  10)  the  Convention  at  Salisbury 
"  was  called  with  no  general  knowledge  of  the  inten^ 
tion  of  a  few  alarmists."  Who,  may  I  ask,  are  these 
alarmists  ?  Do  you  mean  the  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee, and  do  you  attribute  to  them  a  set  purpose,  a 
long  formed  and  deliberate  intention,  entertained  at 
least  a  year  before  the  Salisbury  Convention,  of  in- 
sinuating charges  against  you  ?  If  so,  this  is  a  heavy 
accusation,  but  I  confidently  say  you  have  no  proof  of 
it.  What  combined  intention  could  be  formed,  at  so 
remote  a  period,  by  any  body  of  alarmists,  but  espe- 
cially by  the  Committee  ?  Did  not  i/ou  appoint  the 
Committee  ?  Those  alarmists  live  remote  from  each 
other ;  what  evidence  is  there  that  they  ever  corres- 
ponded on  any  subject,  much  less  on  the  disturbances 
in  the  diocese  ;  and  as  to  any  bandings  or  conspira- 
cies among  us,  every  member  of  the  Committee  Yiot 
only  denies  being  engaged  in  any  such,  but  denies 
any  knowledge  of  any  such. 

And  now  Sir,  I  beseech  you,  either  to  exculpate  us 
from  these  heavy  charges,  or  to  show  which  of  us, 
and  in  what  aspect  any  one  of  us,  and  especially 


38 


which  one,  if  any,  of  the  Committee  on  the  State  of 
the  Church,  has  endeavored  to  thwart  your  views 
illegally ;  to  embarrass  your  official  labors  by  any 
combination  among  ourselves  or  with  the  clergy  ; 
or  to  intimidate  or  coerce  you,  by  exciting  against 
you  the  popular  mind — lending  a  willing  ear  to  ex- 
aggerated statements,  and  giving  publicity  to  confi- 
dential, desultory,  and  unguarded  conversations,  and 
by  aiding  and  abetting  unauthorized,  oppressive,  and 
irresponsible  conventional  acts.  Which  of  us,  and 
in  what  aspect,  especially  which  of  the  Committee  on 
the  State  of  the  Church,  have  banded  together,  or 
conspired,  or  framed  any  evil  designs  against  you  ? 
And,  as  unfortunately  I  have  been  accidentally  far 
more  prominent  on  this  occasion  than  was  at  all  my 
desire,  I  call  upon  you  to  say  whether,  from  your 
knowledge,  or  from  any  sort  of  credible  testimony, 
I  have  ever  been  factiously  or  illegally  opposed  to 
you  ;  whether  I  have  by  any  act  or  words,  in  any 
way,  or  at  any  time,  endeavored  to  combine  at  all  with 
others  against  you,  or  been  privy  to  any  combina- 
tions against  you  ?  Whether  I  have  ever  shown  any 
hostility  to  your  person,  or  uncanonical  or  unclerical 
opposition  to  your  authority  ? 

III.  I  come  now  to  that  portion  of  your  Pastoral 
which  relates  to  the  preamble  to  the  resolution  for  pub- 
lishing the  Report  of  the  Committee  and  your  Charge. 

1.  For  myself,  I  must  observe,  that  I  do  not 
think  a  Diocesan  Convention  the  proper  body  to  de- 
termine what  is  the  faith  of  the  Church,  nor  do  I 
undertake  to  defend  entirely  the  preamble  to  which 
you  so  strongly  object ;  not,  however,  I  must  say, 
generaiJy  speaking,  for  the  reasons  you  assign. 


39 


Not  to  enter  into  the  inquiry  of  what  were  orig* 
inally  and  justly  the  powers  of  diocesan  conventions 
in  regard  to  declaring  what  is  the  faith  of  this  Church, 
the  following  remarks  may  deserve  consideration. 
The  strictness  with  which  our  Church  in  the  United 
States  has,  in  the  Vlllth  Article  of  the  Constitution, 
guarded  against  any  haste  in  changing,  adding  to,  or 
what  in  principle  is  the  same,  interpreting  the  doc- 
trines of  the  Church,  and  the  total  absence  of  any 
such  restrictions  from  any  articles  or  canons  of  any 
diocese  (so  far  as  I  am  aware)  where,  clearly,  such 
restrictions  would  be  most  needed,  show,  I  think,  in- 
dubitably, that  every  diocese  has  virtually,  if  not 
expressly,  either  disclaimed  the  having  ever  possessed 
such  powers,  or  renounced  them  if  ever  possessed. 
But  while  I  am  bound  to  give  this  my  opinion  of  the 
powers  of  a  diocesan  convention  respecting  the  faith 
of  the  Church,  I  must  at  the  same  time  observe,  that 
it  is  very  doubtful  whether  the  Convention  at  Salis- 
bury, can  in  that  preamble  be  said  to  have  declared 
what  was  the  faith  of  the  Church.  The  preamble 
consists  of  three  parts.  In  the  first,  it  is  declared  to 
be  the  opinion  of  this  Convention,  that  the  Church 
nowhere  requires  the  practice  of  auricular  confession 
and  private  absolution.  In  the  second,  the  language 
of  Bishop  Hobart  is  adopted  by  the  Convention  as 
the  expression  of  its  own  opinion.  In  the  third,  the 
satisfaction  of  the  Convention  is  expressed  with  the 
Charge  which  you  sent  to  the  Convention.  Certainly 
no  fault  can  be  found  with  the  last  part.  In  the  first 
there  is  no  opinion  declared  of  a  point  of  faith,  but 
of  a  point  of  discipline.    She  (the  Church)  nowhere 


40 


requires  the  practice  of  auricular  confession  and 
private  absolution.  The  first  clause  of  the  quotation 
from  Bishop  Hobart  relates  to  the  Church  of  Rome, 
and  it  can  only  be  in  the  following  words  adopted  by 
the  Convention,  from  that  eminent  Bishop,  that  any 
declaration  of  what  is  the  faith  of  the  Church  can  be 
supposed  to  be  advanced. 

"  The  Churchman  justly  deems  auricular  confess 
sion  and  absolution,  an  encroachment  on  the  rights 
of  conscience — -an  invasion  of  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Searcher  of  hearts ;  and  with  some  exceptions,  hos- 
tile to  domestic  and  social  happiness,  and  licentiou  s 
and  corrupting  in  its  tendency." 

Now  unless  this  quotation,  adopted  by  the  Con» 
vention  as  their  own,  must  be  considered  as  having 
reference  to  doctrine,  and  not  to  discipline,  the  Con« 
vention  have  in  nowise  "published  their  authorita- 
tive judgment  of  what  the  Bishop  and  his  clergy  are 
to  teach,"  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  I  do  not 
undertake  to  advocate  even  what  the  Convention  has 
done,  but  it  must,  at  the  least,  be  acknowledged  that 
the  preamble  is  expressed  with  very  great  modera* 
tion.  A  great  part  of  it  is  a  quotation  from  a  prelate 
whose  character  is  deeply  reverenced,  and  whose 
memory  is  cherished  in  the  Church,  and  by  none,  it  is 
to  be  presumed,  more  than  by  yourself.  Great  sat- 
isfaction is  in  the  preamble  expressed  at  the  delivery 
of  your  charge. 

Nor  is  this  all  to  be  alleged.  A  preamble  had  been 
passed  by  the  Convention,  to  which  it  was  understood 
you  seriously  objected.  With  the  full  consent  of  the 
mover  of  the  preamble  and  resolution,  as  I  have 


41 


learned,  one  of  your  friends  waited  on  you  with  this 
preamble  and  resolution,  and  they  were  modified  at 
your  bed-side  to  meet  your  views,  and  you  expressed 
your  satisfaction." 

The  modified  preamble  and  resolution  were  wil- 
lingly adopted  by  the  Convention  in  place  of  the 
original  one. 

I  do  not  adduce  this  transaction,  Sir,  to  show  that 
you  approved  of  the  action  of  the  Convention  ;  I  do 
not  adduce  it  to  show  any  inconsistency  between  this 
assent  and  the  condemnation  of  the  action  of  the 
Convention  contained  in  your  Pastoral.  I  do  not  sup- 
pose that  you  did  approve  of  the  action  of  the  Con- 
vention, but  assented  to  the  modified  preamble  and 
resolution  as  being  least  opposed  to  your  wishes ;  and  I 
do  not  think  that  acts  performed  during  serious  indis- 
position, with  its  concomitant  depressioti,  should  be 
judged  of  with  the  same  strictness  as  acts  performed 
during  health  ;  but  I  adduce  it  to  show  that  there  was 
no  hostility  to  you  personally,  but  on  the  contrary, 
that  there  was  a  desire  to  obtain,  as  far  as  possible, 
your  sanction  for  what  was  done,  from  personal  as 
well  as  official  respect  towards  you. 

The  next  point  relates  to  the  violation  of  rubrics. 
I  must  here  confess  my  surprise  at  the  extent  of  your 
charge  and  the  manner  of  making  it.  It  is  first 
against  every  clergyman.  You  declare  (p.  58)  that 
after  mature  deliberation,  you  hesitate  not  to  affirm, 
that  no  clergyman  in  this  diocese  is  free  from  such  a 
charge,  and  none  less  than  tho  members  of  the  Com- 
mittee themselves  ;  and  then  you  proceed  :  What 
clergyman  does  so  and  so  ?    What  priest  does  so  and 


42 


so  ?  adding,  "  when  each  member  of  the  Committee, 
and  each  clergyman  in  the  diocese  can  declare  before 
God,  that  in  none  of  these  respects  he  has  failed  to 
come  up  to  the  letter  or  spirit  of  the  rubrical  law  of 
the  Church,  then,  and  not  till  then,  may  he  consistent- 
ly be  intolerant  of  such  as  violate  the  rubrics." 

Allow  me.  Sir,  to  ask,  what  can  be  the  purport  of 
these  questions  ?  Do  you  actually  mean  to  charge 
upon  every  clergyman  in  the  diocese,  the  breach  of 
every  one  of  these  rubrics  ?  From  your  selecting 
these  rubrics  and  taking  no  notice  of  others,  it  might 
appear  so.  And  yet  1  can  hardly  think  it  was  your 
meaning,  even  with  respect  to  any  one  clergyman, 
for  what  clergy  man  can  there  be  in  this  diocese,  who 
ministers  in  such  neglect  of  his  solemn  promise  of 
obedience  ?  I  beg  that  you  will  state  it  plainly,  that 
we  may  know  what  answer  to  return  to  your  charge. 

I  certainly  have  not  the  same  opportunity  of 
judging  of  these  matters  as  yourself  The  clergy  of 
North  Carolina  have,  however,  ever  been  supposed 
observers,  and  not  breakers  of  rubrics,  and  if  the 
contrary  has,  in  any  instance,  to  anythmg  like  the 
extent  here  implied,  been  the  case,  does  no  blame  at- 
tach to  you  for  having  permitted  such  breaches  ?  As 
to  some  of  those  rubrics — for  instance,  those  which 
relate  to  clergyman's  intercourse  with  the  rich,  it  is 
hardly  probable  you  should  know  whether  they  were 
or  were  not  observed.  I  must  then  suppose  your  object 
was  to  have  us  give  evidence  against  ourselves  ;  or 
was  it,  to  call  on  us  to  exculpate  ourselves  not  from 
those  violations  of  the  rubrics  of  which  you  knew  us 
to  be  guilty,  but  of  those  of  which  you  suspected  we 


43 


might  be  guilty.  But  if  so,  is  it  reasonable,  Sir,  that 
you  should  make,  and  we  should  answer  such  an  ap- 
peal ?  How  are  we  to  answer  it  ?  By  what  means  ? 
In  what  way  ?  And  that  you  may  not  think  I  wish 
to  evade  your  appeal,  I  beg  the  favor  of  you  to  say 
in  what  respects  you  know  me  to  violate  the  rubrics. 
1  neither  mean  to  affirm  or  deny  that  such  is  the  case, 
but  as  I  full  well  am  conscious  that  I  have  no  ends 
to  answer  in  violating  the  rubrics,  no  desire  to  do  so, 
I  promise  you,  by  the  grace  of  God,  to  amend  as 
soon  as  you  have  pointed  out  my  delinquencies. 

One  thing  is  certain,  those  delinquencies  could 
not  have  been  very  great  ;  since  I  do  not  recollect 
your  having  pointed  out  to  me  but  one  irregularity, 
and  that  one  was  corrected  as  soon  as  pointed  out. 
I  do  not  speak  of  occasional  acts  of  forgetfulness — 
of  undesigned  inadvertencies ;  unhappily  1  am  but 
too  subject  to  these  things ;  but  of  purposed  and 
especially  of  habitual  violations. 

You  do  indeed,  exculpate  us  in  a  certain  way 
from  any  blame,  in  the  charge  you  have  made  against 
us,  for  you  declare,  "  While,  however,  I  say  that  all 
my  clergy,  more  or  less,  violate  the  rubrics,  I  am 
bound  to  add  my  belief  that  no  one  either  does,  or 
has  done  it,  needlessly,  or  with  a  view  to  depart 
from  the  faith  or  worship  of  the  Churc!.."  Now,  if 
none  of  us  have  violated  the  rubrics  needlessly,  then 
are  we  acquitted  of  any  sort  of  blame,  for  need  or 
necessity  is  an  imperious  master  that  will  be  obeyed. 
But  I  am  afraid,  Sir,  your  "  needlessly  "  has  not  this 
rigid  signification  ;  for  you  state  it  as  your  convic- 
tion, "  that  the  Church  intended  the  rubrics  rather  as 


44 


general  directions  than  as  inflexible  laws  ;  to  be  strict- 
ly followed  when  circumstances  will  admit  of  it,  but 
to  be  departed  from  where,  in  the  candid  and  filial 
judgment  of  the  priest,  her  leading  purposes  demand 
it,  as  sometimes  they  unquestionably  do.''  I  do  not 
deny  but  that  there  may  be  occasions  on  which  the 
Church  requires  a  necessary  act  to  be  done,  which,  if 
done,  cannot  from  circumstances  be  done  in  its  full- 
ness, rubrically.  In  which  case,  who  can  doubt  that 
it  would  be  better  to  regard  the  spirit  than  the  letter 
of  the  rubric?  As  for  instance,  suppose  a  minister 
called  on  to  baptise  a  child  in  a  remote  part  of  the 
country,  where  no  regular  congregation  existed,  nor 
Was  likely  soon  to  exist,  which  would  be  preferable,  to 
use  the  form  of  public  or  private  baptism  ?  If  by  cir- 
cumstances, you  mean  isolated  cases  of  this  sort, 
they,  I  conceive,  are  so  far  from  a  violation, 
that  they  can  barely  be  called  a  departure  from  the 
rubric.  But  cases  of  this  sort  can  rarely  if  ever 
occur  in  regular  congregations.  What  circum- 
stances can  possibly  require,  "  that  in  the  baptism  of 
an  infant,  the  water  should  not  be  poured  on  it  ?  " 
What  circumstances  can  ever  require  "that  the  sea- 
son of  Lent  should  not  be  observed  ?  "  What  circum- 
stances can  ever  require  that  the  "remaining  conse- 
crated bread  and  wine  should  not  be  reverently  eaten 
and  drunk  immediately  after  the  blessing?"  and  I 
am  much  afraid,  Sir,  that  what  you  say  on  this  head 
is  calculated  to  open  the  door  at  once  to  the  wildest 
license.  According  as  each  clergyman  may  deem 
that  circumstances  warrant  his  departure  from  the 
rubric  ;  caprice,  convenience,  peculiarity  of  opinion ; 


45 


a  variety  of  causes  will  influence  his  practice,  and 
produce  the  greatest  disorder  and  confusion.  But, 
Sir,  let  it  be  observed,  that  the  Committee  do  not 
speak  of  such  departure  from  rubrical  observance 
as  imply  mere  neglect,  or  such  as  are  of  minor  im- 
portance, they  speak  of  such  as  violate  the  rubrics ; 
that  is,  as  the  whole  passage  shows,  they  speak  of  the 
introduction  of  such  ceremonies  as  violate  the  ru- 
brics. That  such  a  distinction  is  of  importance, 
will  appear  from  a  single  example.  The  first  rubric 
under  the  ministration  of"  Private  Baptism,"  requires 
that  "  The  minister  shall  often  admonish  the  people, 
that  they  defer  not  the  baptism  of  their  children 
longer  than  the  first  or  second  Sunday  next  after 
their  birth,  or  other  holy  day  following  between,  un- 
less upon  a  great  wid  reasonable  cause."  Suppose 
the  minister  often  admonish  his  people  not  to  defer 
the  baptism  of  their  children  any  longer  than  is 
necessary,  but  seldom  if  ever  mention  the  exact  time 
specified  in  the  rubric.  He  may  be  said  to  depart 
from  the  strict  letter  of  the  rubric,  but  he  could  not 
be  said  to  violate  it,  much  less  to  introduce  a  cere- 
mony which  violates  it.  But  suppose  a  clergyman 
were  to  have  a  pix  placed  on  the  *'  Holy  table,"  and 
in  that  pix  should  reserve  the  consecrated  element  for 
daily  receiving;  surely  this,  if  any  thing,  must  be 
called  a  violation  of  the  rubrics :  yes,  the  introduc- 
tion of  a  ceremony  in  violation  of  the  rubrics. 
Now  this  was  done  at  Valle  Crycis,  and  done  with 
your  sanction,  if  not  with  your  advice. 

I  must  here  express  my  surprise  at  a  question 
yon  have  put  in  the  55th  page  of  your  Pastoral.  The 


46 


Committee  had  spoken  of  ceremonies  unauthorized 
by  the  custom  of  this  Church.  You  ask  of  what 
Church?  You  will  find  the  answer,  Sir,  in  the  pre* 
face  to  the  Prayer  Book,  in  the  second  question  to  the 
deacon,  in  "  The  Ordering  of  Deacons  in  the  first 
in  that  of  Priest,  and  first  in  that  of  Bishops.  I 
would  beg  leave  also  to  refer  you  to  the  35th  Article* 

IV.  As  intimately  connected  with  the  report  of 
the  Committee,  I  proceed  to  notice  your  remarks  on 
the  subject  of  the  "  Society  of  the  Holy  Cross." 
Here,  I  must  confess,  that  if  the  Committee  could  not 
with  propriety,  they  might  with  great  truth,  have  de* 
Glared  they  were  happy  to  learn  that  no  such  society 
was  then  in  existence.  I  hope  that  if  I  express  my 
opinion  somewhat  plainly  on  this  subject,  I  shall  be 
pardoned,  as  I  trust  in  doing  so  I^all  not  transgress 
the  bounds  of  that  respect  justly  due  to  you. 

Your  address  to  the  clergymen  who  came  to  you 
in  New- York  in  1847,  shows  that  these  young  clergy- 
men were  by  you  suspected  of  not  being  very  strongly 
attached  to  "  our  branch  of  the  Church."  But  in 
your  address  to  them,  and  your  reception  of  them, 
no  one  can  find,  as  I  think,  just  cause  of  censure ; 
surely  it  was  the  duty  of  a  bishop  to  take  charge  of 
those  who  might  be  wavering  in  the  faith;  and 
endeavor  to  confirm  them  therein.  But  that  the 
means  you  took  for  this  purpose  were  not  merely 
injudicious,  but  wrong,  I  am  constrained  to  believe; 
and  I  thank  God,  that  in  the  dissolution  of  the  Society 
of  the  Holy  Cross,  which  you  have  assured  us  of,  the 
evil  has  been  so  far  remedied.  It  seems  these  "young 
men  wished  to  devote  themselves  soul  and  body  to 


47 


Christ,  according  to  the  evangelical  counsels,"  or  in 
other  words,  if  I  understand  it,  they  vv^ished  to  take  a 
vow  of  chastity,  poverty,  and  obedience  ;  and  as  there 
were  to  be  perpetual  nnenabers,  so  in  the  case  of  these 
perpetual  mennbers,  avow  of  perpetual  chastity,  pov- 
erty, and  obedience.  Now,  Sir,  with  all  deference  for 
your  higher  authority,  I  nnust  be  allowed  to  say  that 
I  consider  any  such  vow  as  fraught  with  the  most 
serious  evils.  In  the  last  particular  of  obedience,  as 
decidedly  contrary  to  Christian  duty.  What  evils 
have  resulted  to  the  cause  of  good  n^iorals,  not  only 
from  the  enforced  celibacy  of  the  clergy  as  existing  in 
the  Church  of  Rome,  but  also  from  voluntary  vows 
of  celibacy,  (which  indeed  amount  to  the  same  thing,) 
the  history  of  the  Church  has  sadly  showed  in  all  ages« 
I  look  upon  the  enforced  or  vowed  celibacy  of  the 
clergy,  with  the  enforced  confessional,  as  one  of  the 
sorest  moral  evils  with  which  Christendom  was  ever 
afflicted.  And  if  any  one  wishes  to  see  the  truth 
of  this  position,  let  him  examine  the  authorities  quoted 
by  Jewell  in  his  Defence  of  his  Apology  for  the  Church 
of  England,  (vol.  IV,  p.  565.  et  seq.,  p.  612.  et  seq. 
Jelfs  edit.,)  and  by  Bishop  Hall  in  his  first  book  of 
the  Honor  of  the  Married  Clergy,  (section  20.)  Let 
it  be  understood,  I  do  not  here  speak  of  a  life  of 
celibacy  simply,  for  if  any  one,  and  especially  a 
clergyman,  believes  that  he  can  thereby  best  serve 
God,  save  his  own  soul,  and  advance  the  welfare, 
especially  the  spiritual  welfare  of  his  fellow  men  ;  who 
shall  undertake  to  censure  such  conduct  ?  It  is  of  the 
vow  I  speak,  and  not  of  the  life.  Of  a  vow,  by  which 
young  persons  ignorant  of  the  world,  ignorant  of 


4S 


themselves,  ignorant  of  the  peculiar  relations  in  which 
they  may  be  placed,  and  temptations  to  which  they 
may  be  subjected,  in  a  moment  of  excited  feeling  of 
ardent,  but  ill-directed  zeal,  shall  irremediably  devote 
themselves  to  a  course  of  life  which  they  may  after- 
wards, and  soon  find,  on  many  accounts,  prejudicial  to 
the  true  interests  of  religion,  most  ensnaring,  most 
dangerous;  but  which  they  dare  neither  keep  nor 
depart  from  without  sin,  without  great  peril  to  their 
souls,  peril  on  the  one  hand  by  the  temptations  to 
which  they  may  be  subjected,  or  peculiar  duties  to 
which  they  may  be  called,  and  on  the  other  of  sin  in 
violation  of  the  vow.  Where,  indeed,  is  the  neces- 
sity of  a  vow?  If  the  person  desiring  to  enter  on  a 
life  of  celibacy,  believe  it  the  best,  why  not  perse- 
vere as  long  as  it  is  thus  viewed  to  be  best,  without  a 
vow  ?  If  circumstances  change,  if  there  be  no  longer 
a  conviction  of  the  necessity  or  duty  of  a  single  life, 
but  the  contrary,  why  not  be  free  to  change  the  con- 
dition, instead  of  being  bound  by  a  vow,  which  can 
neither  be  kept  or  broken  without  sin.  The  same 
remarks  will  be  applicable,  though  not  perhaps  with 
the  same  degree  of  force,  in  regard  to  a  life  of  pov- 
erty. Let  the  condition  be  assumed  if  requisite,  but 
without  a  vow,  lest  by  a  vow  the  soul  be  ensnared. 
Who  has  not  experienced  the  truth  of  the  poet's 
maxim — "  nitimur  in  vetita."  Temptations  are  not 
always  lessened  by  prohibition,  nor  is  the  desire  of 
the  forbidden  object  enfeebled  because  the  prohibi- 
tion has  unnecessarily  come  from  ourselves. 

With  respect  to  the  vow  of  obedience,  the  objec- 
tion in  my  mind  is  still  stronger,  for  what  is  this  vow 


49 


of  obedience,  taken  ?  is  it  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing 
the  dutiful  submission  which  the  ordinal  and  canons 
require  from  the  inferior  clergy  to  their  bishop? 
Then  is  it  unnecessary ;  and  net  only  unnecessary, 
but  wrong ;  for  it  substitutes  in  place  of  the  Church's 
authority,  the  authority  of  a  self-constituted  and 
limited  society  ;  or,  at  the  very  least,  disparages  such 
Church  authority  as  if  it  were  insufficient.  Is  this 
vow  of  obedience  for  the  purpose  of  creating  new 
obligations  ?  new  acts  of  submission  towards  you  as 
bishop  ?  then  such  vow  of  obedience  declares  the  in- 
sufficiency of  the  Church's  requisitions,  and  makes 
requisitions  and  exacts  duties  which  she  has  nowhere 
made  or  exacted  or  countenanced.  Was  this  vow  of 
obedience  made  to  you  or  any  one  else  as  the  head  of 
the  institution  ?  Suppose  then  a  member  of  the  Holy 
Cross  had  removed  to  another  diocese,  would  he  there- 
by have  been  absolved  from  his  vow?  or  would  his  vow- 
ed obligation  to  obey  the  head  of  his  society  have  still 
continued  ?  If  it  would,  would  it  not  have  confficted 
seriously  with  his  obligations  to  obey  the  bishop  of  the 
diocese  to  which  he  might  have  removed  ?  But  what 
was  the  extent  of  that  vow  ?  As  the  society,  accord- 
ing to  the  account  you  have  given  of  it,  resembled, 
it  appears  to  me,  in  many  respects,  the  Society  of  the 
Jesuits  ;  was  it  a  vow  not  only  to  submit  implicitly  the 
actions  'to  the  command  of  a  superior,'  the  *go  and 
he  goeth,'  the  '  come  and  he  cometh,'  the  '  do  this  and 
he  doeth  it,'  (one  of  the  most  serious  objections,  in 
my  opinion,  to  the  military  life,)  but  along  with  this, 
was  there  the  submission  of  even  the  dictates  of  the  un- 
derstanding and  the  freedom  of  the  will  ?  If  so,  high 
3 


m 

time,  indeed,  were  it  that  the  society  should  be,  and 
happy  may  we  be  that  it  is  dissolved  ;  may  we  never 
have  a  renewal  of  it  in  any  kind  or  degree.  But  I  must 
further  maintain.  Sir,  that  the  rules  of  order  of  the  so- 
ciety, manifest  much  that  is  to  be  censured.  Why  are 
the  members  of  the  society  required  to  "  inculcate  on 
the  minds  of  all  within  their  reach  the  Sacramental  sys- 
tem of  the  Church,  particularly  Baptismal  Regenera- 
ation,  the  Real  Presence  of  our  Lord  in  the  Holy  Eu- 
charist, and  Sacerdotal  Absolution  ?  "  Why  should 
such  teaching  be  given  such  peculiar  prominence  ? 
Either  these  are  doctrines  of  the  Church  or  they  are 
not.  If  they  are,  then  the  Church  insists  on  their  being 
inculcated  in  their  proper  order,  time  and  degree.  And 
I  must  contend  that  it  is  not  only  inexpedient  but 
wrong  to  institute  a  society  for  doing  that  unduly 
which  the  Church  requires  to  be  done  duly.  If  they 
are  not,  then  they  ought  not  to  be  inculcated  at  all.  I 
have  frequently  heard  you  speak  in  terms  of  reproba- 
tion of  self-constituted  societies  out  of  the  Church,  for 
the  purpose  of  effecting  any  object  of  morals,  be- 
cause they  thrust  themselves  into  the  place  of  an  in-- 
stitution  of  God's  appointment — the  Church- — and  at- 
tempt to  influence  their  members  by  inferior  motives 
than  those  of  duty  to  God  and  our  eternal  interests. 
But,  Sir,  do  you  think  societies  out  of  the  Church,  foF 
the  purpose  of  affecting  moral  objects,  are  a  greater 
usurpation  of  her  rights  than  societies  in  the  Church 
for  effecting  similar  objects,  besides  giving  undue  pro- 
minence to  such  objects  ?  But  what  is  meant  by  the 
Sacramental  system  ?  What  by  Baptismal  Regene-- 
ration  ?    By  Sacerdotal  Absolution  ?    By  the  Real 


61 


Presence  ?  These  expressions  maij  mean  nothing  more 
than  what  our  Church  teaches,  but  they  may  mean 
a  great  deal  more,  and  according  to  what  is  supposed 
to  be  your  views,  may  in  our  opinion  teach  much 
more  ;  the  last  expression  especially — The  Real 
Presence" — is  liable  to  be  much  misunderstood.  It  is 
a  term  not  employed  in  the  offices  of  the  Church, 
although  it  has  been  employed  by  many  of  her  emi- 
nent Divines.  It  may  mean  the  Spiritual  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  taught  in  the  Catechism, 
the  Litany,  and  the  20th  and  29th  Articles,  or  it  may 
mean  Transubstantiation,  Consubstantion,  or  some 
nice  distinction  of  a  corporal  presence,  distinct,  if 
such  can  be,  from  either  of  these,  but  still  most 
certainly  not  in  accordance  with  the  teachings  of  our 
Church.  And  thus  the  undue  prominence  given  to 
these  parts  of  what  you  term  the  sacramental  system, 
may  really  not  be  the  true  sacramental  system,  and 
may  be  opposed  to  the  teachings  of  our  Church. 

In  connection  with  this  subject  of  the  Society  of 
the  Holy  Cross,  there  naturally  arises  the  considera- 
tion of  that  which  you  have  introduced  on  the  70th 
page  of  your  Pastoral,  the  manual  of  devotion  placed 
in  the  hands  of  boys  at  Valle  Crucis.  Without  resort- 
ing to  amj  otJm^  evidence  to  show  the  light,  the  too 
favorable  light,  excuse  me  for  saying,  in  which  you 
appear  to  me  to  have  viewed  this  most  serious,  this 
most  censurable  proceeding,  I  am  truly  distressed  to 
find  you  mentioning  it  in  such  terms  as  your  Pastoral 
exhibits.  In  page  24,  you  say,  "some  expressions 
were  objected  to;"  and  again,  "there  had  been  no 
designed  violations  of  our  standards,  nor  disobedience 
of  my  directions." 


62 


"  Expressions  !  no  designed  violations  ?  No 
disobedience  to  your  directions?  Alas!  Sir,  is  this 
the  mode  in  which  a  Bishop  of  this  Church  should 
speak  of  the  introduction  into  a  manual  of  devotions, 
put  into  the  hands  of  boys  intrusted  to  the  care  of  those 
supposed  faithful  to  the  Church,  of  the  following 
prayers : 

1.  "The  Hail  Mary,"  so  common  in  books  of 
Romish  devotion,  and  which,  though  salutations 
of  mere  honor  from  the  angel  and  Elizabeth  to  the 
ever  blessed  and  most  honored  Virgin,  mother  of  our 
Lord  while  on  earth,  become  acts  of  religious  homage 
and  adoration,  when  addressed  to  her  in  the  other 
world. 

2.  The  following  prayer  to  the  guardian  angel : — • 
"  Oh !  blessed  angel,  to  whose  care  I  am  committed  by 
God's  mercy,  enUghten,  defend  and  govern  me  through 
all  my  life,  and  to  the  hour  of  my  death.  Amen."  O, 
Sir,  are  these  to  be  characterized  as  "  expressions,"  and 
"  no  designed  violations  of  our  standards  ?  "  If  there 
is  any  part  of  the  corrupt  system  of  the  Church  of 
Rome  that  I  hold  in  deepest  abhorrence,  it  is  her  poly- 
theistic and  idolatrous  worship,  as  a  violation  of  the 
two  first  commandments,  the  very  foundation  of  all 
duty  to  God,  "  Thou  shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God, 
and  him  only  shalt  thou  serve."  In  the  manual,  then, 
was  there  no  "  worshipping  of  angels,"  (Col.  ii.  18.) 
was  there  no  violation  of  the  standards  of  the  Church  ? 

3.  There  was  also  in  that  manual  the  following 
prayer  for  the  dead  :  "  Bless  the  dead  in  Christ,  grant 
them  remission  of  sins,  and  a  peaceful  rest  in  Thee." 
I  am  truly  alarmed  to  hear  what  you  say  on  this 


53 

head.  Can  it  be  possible,  that  in  page  56th  of  your 
Pastoral,  you  show  your  favorable  inclinations  towards 
this  practice  so  strongly,  as  even  to  accuse  those 
who  "fail  to  remember  in  their  prayers  and  oblations 
the  faithful  departed,"  of  virtually  denying  the  Com- 
munion of  Saints,  and  consequently,  of  being,  virtu- 
ally, heretics  ;  inasmuch  the  Communion  of  Saints 
is  an  article  of  the  Apostles'  Creed ;  could  you  have 
meant  this  for  the  Church  herself ;  for  unless  you  sup- 
pose the  Church  has  somewhere  remembered  the 
faithful  departed,  in  her  prayers  and  oblations,  she 
must  come  under  your  censure  ?  Oh !  Sir,  let  me  hope 
that  these  words  escaped  you  in  an  unguarded  moment 
and  that  you  did  not  see  the  force  of  your  expressions. 

The  history  of  this  manual,  so  far  as  I  am  ac- 
quainted with  it,  is  not  calculated  to  impress  the 
Church  favorably,  as  regards  the  condition  of  the 
institution  at  Valle  Crucis.  I  find  from  your  state- 
ment that  you  had  corrected  the  manual  of  devotion 
a  year  before  issuing  your  late  Pastoral.  And  yet 
another  copy,  containing  the  very  same  passages,  is 
discovered  in  the  possession  of  another  youth  return- 
ing home  from  Valle  Crucis  after  the  Convention. 
And  these  two  copies  are  the  only  two  publicly 
known.  Surely  this  indicates,  to  speak  in  mild 
terms,  great  negligence  and  indifference  with  respect 
to  these  unscriptural  practices  on  the  part  of  him  or 
those  who  had  charge  of  the  education  of  these  boys. 
Here,  I  think,  is  most  serious  cause  of  alarm,  and 
pardon  me  for  saying,  I  think  you  have  far  too  easily 
borne  with  these  practices. 

With  respect  to  this  institution  at  Valle  Crucis, 


54 


you  tell  us,  "  For  years  I  have  sought  to  induce  you 
to  take  the  responsibility  of  this  institution,  and  par- 
ticularly by  a  public  proposal  at  the  Convention  in 
Newbern,  1847."  But  I  would  respectfully  ask, 
Sir,  what  kind  of  responsibility  did  you  wish  the 
Convention  to  assume  ?  none  certainly  but  a  pecu- 
niary responsibility  ;  and  what  obligation,  what  pro- 
priety was  there  for  the  Convention  to  assunne  a 
responsibility  of  which,  from  past  experience,  they  had 
learned  the  danger  and  the  evils.  The  Convention 
at  Washington,  in  1844,  through  the  report  of  the 
Missionary  Committee,  declined  entering  into  the 
measure  before  any  pecuniary  embarrassment  had 
arisen,why  should  theyassume  the  responsibility  of  that 
undertaking  after  such  embarrassment  had  ensued  ? 

You  call  on  us,  Sir,  in  the  conclusion  of  your  Pas- 
toral, in  eloquent  and  moving  terms,  to  "  stand  firm 
with  you  once  more  against  the  enemy  of  truth,  of  God 
and  righteousness,  in  this  evil  day."  When  did  we 
fail  to  stand  up  for  the  truth,  that  you  call  on  us  to  do 
it  once  more  ?  When,  and  in  what  respect  have  we 
altered  ?  Wherein  have  we  deserted  the  truth  and 
turned  aside  to  error  ?  If  for  "  nearly  twenty  years  " 
the  diocese  has  proceeded  in  harmony  with  you,  from 
whence  comes  the  change  ?  Have  you  retained 
your  original  position,  and  have  the  clergy  and  laity 
gone  from  you — or  any  considerable  portion  of  them  ? 
Have  you  brought  no  strange  things  to  our  ears — 
whether  true  or  false,  still  strange ;  and  can  you  ex- 
pect us  to  adopt  them,  contrary  as  we  believe  them 
to  be  to  the  teachings  we  have  always  received  ? 
You  declare  (p.  73)  that  you  "  boldly  aver  you  have 


§5 


gone  beyond  no  doctrine  of  the  Church:  sought  to 
introduce  no  new  practice."  if  by  the  Church,'* 
you  mean  what  you  fitly  characterize  as  "  our  branch 
of  the  Catholic  Church,"  then  I  must  contend  that 
your  judgment  of  your  own  teaching  differs  from  the 
judgment  of  almost  all,  if  not  all  those  of  any  weight 
of  opinion,  who  have  expressed  a  public  opinion  on 
this  subject,  unless  perhaps  the  excellent  Bishop  of 
South  Carolina  be  an  exception.  ^ 

If  your  doctrine  be  really  in  accordance  with  the 
doctrine  of  our  Church,  then  has  your  doctrine  been 
most  grievously  misunderstood,  or  the  Church's  doc- 
trine has  been  misunderstood.  For  who  has  not 
supposed  that  you  have  intended  to  inculcate  the 
general  if  not  absolute  necessity  of  a  private  confes- 
sion to  a  priest,  of  all  mortal  sins,  and  the  eminent 
propriety,  if  not  necessity,  of  private  absolution  to 
the  penitent  ?  Who  has  not  been  under  the  impres- 
sion that  when  you  insisted  on  the  necessity  of  priest- 
ly absolution  for  the  remission  of  sins,  it  was  on  the 
necessity  of  private  priestly  absolution  you  insisted, 
inasmuch  as  the  public  absolution  is  always  to  be 
obtained  by  the  penitent  in  the  public  offices  of  the 
Church  ?  Who  has  not  supposed  that  you  taught  the 
necessity  of  the  judgment  of  the  priest  upon  our  sins, 
our  mortal  sins,  at  least  before  such  absolution  could 
be  granted  ;  and  that  for  such  judgment  the  private 
confession  of  all  mortal  sins  that  could  be  remem- 
bered must  be  made  ?  V/ho  has  not  supposed  that  in 
your  teaching  on  these  points,  you  approached  near- 
ly, if  you  did  not  entirely  agree  with  the  teaching  of 
the  Church  of  Rome,  as  exhibited  in  the  14th  Session 
of  the  Council  of  Trent  ? 


65 


I  would  then,  Sir,  respectfully  but  earnestly  be- 
seech you  to  remove  our  doubts,  and  explain  dis- 
tinctly and  fully,  what  is  really  your  doctrine  on 
these  subjects.  Permit  me  then,  for  the  resolution  of 
our  doubts,  to  propose  to  you  the  following  questions. 
When  in  page  25  of  your  late  Pastoral,  you  speak  of 
"the  necessity  of  priestly  absolution  ;  to  remit  all  sin 
after  baptism,  &c."  do  you  mean  such  absolution  as 
is  conveyed  in  the  Lord's  Supper,  to  the  penitent  and 
worthy  receiver?  If  so,  there  can  be  no  difficulty; 
for  the  Church,  in  conformity  with  Holy  Scriptures, 
teaches  us  that  this  sacrament,  as  well  as  Baptism,  is 
generally  necessary  to  salvation.  No  one,  therefore, 
can  expect  the  remission  of  sins  after  baptism,  who  is 
wilfully  not  a  partaker  of  the  Holy  Eucharist,  for  such 
person  shuts  himself  out  from  the  chief  means  of  grace, 
under  the  Christian  covenant.  Or  do  you  mean.  The 
declaration  of  absolution  to  God's  people,  being  pen- 
itent, to  all  those  who  truly  repent  and  unfeignedly 
believe  his  holy  Gospel?  Now  without  inquiring 
into  the  exact  nature  and  degree  of  the  efficacy  of 
this  absolution,  or  of  its  necessity ;  as  a  practical 
question,  we  need  not  dispute  about  it ;  there  need 
be  little  or  no  difficulty.  For  every  sincere  penitent, 
every  true  worshipper  of  God,  receives  such  absolu- 
tion every  time  he  worships  God  in  public ;  and  no 
one  can  expect  such  beviefit  from  such  absolution, 
who  for  his  sm?  is  justly  excommunicate  ;  or  Vv^hose 
gross,  though  secret  and  unrepented  sins,  render  him 
incapable  of  partaking  of  Christ,  though  he  be  a  par- 
taker of  the  sacramental  bread  and  wine ;  or  who, 
through  worldly-mindedness,  or  neglect,  or  indiffer- 


57 


ence,  or  conscious  guilt,  shuts  himself  out  from  the 
Communion  of  Saints,  in  the  Lord's  Supper.  Or  do 
you  mean  that  there  must  also  be  a  private  absolution, 
granted  separately  to  each  penitent  after  a  knowl- 
edge of,  and  judgment  on  his  case  by  the  priest ;  and 
that  this  absolution  conveys  to  him  the  actual  remis^ 
sion  of  his  sins  ?  If  this  be  your  meaning,  then  Sir, 
I  must  contend  that  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church, 
our  branch  of  the  Catholic  Church,  has  no  such  doc- 
trine. 

Every  true  branch  of  the  Church  must  have  the 
power  through  her  priesthood,  of  absolving  from  eccle- 
siastical censures;  the  power  of  admitting  to  Holy 
Communion,  those  who  had  been  excluded  therefrom  ; 
and  this  absolution  may  be  performed  by  the  priest, 
according  to  the  discipline  of  the  Church,  either  pub- 
licly or  privately,  either  without  or  with  a  form ;  but 
any  private  absolution  of  sins  other  than  this  inci- 
dental and  necessary  one,  arising  from  the  nature  of 
the  case,  it  is  plain  our  Church  does  not  recognize,  for 
there  is  novv^here  in  her  offices,  the  least  hint  of  the 
necessity  of  such  absolution,  or  of  permission  to  em- 
ploy it,  except  in  the  single  case  of  a  criminal  con- 
demned to  death.  Nor  does  the  Church  of  England 
recognize  any  such  necessity,  for  whatever  may  be 
the  force  of  the  form  of  absolution  in  the  visitation  of 
the  sick,  it  is  to  be  used  only  when  the  sick  person 
''shall  humbly  and  heartily  desire  it."  And  this,  or 
some  other  declaration  or  pronouncing  of  absolution, 
is  likewise  allowed  to  the  person  who,  not  being  able 
to  quiet  his  own  conscience,  is  exhorted  to  resort  to 
some  minister  of  God's  word,  "that  he  may  receive 


68 


the  benefit  of  absolution  together  with  ghostly  coun- 
sel and  advice." 

Again,  with  respect  to  private  confession,  you  tell 
us  in  your  charge  to  the  clergy  at  the  Salisbury  Con- 
vention, "  that  the  only  confession  which  the  Church 
authorizes,  is  the  voluntary  confession  of  the  peni- 
tent in  accordance  with  the  exhortation  in  the  Office 
of  the  Holy  Communion,"  and  in  the  end  of  your 
late  Pastoral,  you  assure  us  of  your  continued  ad- 
herence to  the  opinion  expressed  in  that  Charge.  On 
the  other  hand,  from  various  passages  in  your  recent 
publications,  as  for  instance,  at  page  24,  of  your  Pas- 
toral on  the  Priestly  Office,  p.  114,  in  your  "Obedi- 
ence of  Faith,"  (sermon  on  self-examination;)  page 
51  and  52,  of  your  late  Pastoral ;  it  has  been  generally 
thought  that  you  designed  to  inculcate  the  necessity 
of  private  confession  of  all  our  mortal  sins  to  a  priest, 
that  he  might  properly  judge  of  our  state,  and  grant 
us  absolution.    Let  me,  then,  beseech  you,  Sir,  to 
inform  us  distinctly  what  is  your  exact  opinion  on 
the  subject  of  private  confession.    Do  you  hold  and 
teach  that  it  is  a  practice  recommended  merely  by  the 
Church,  to  be  performed  occasionally  under  certain 
circumstances,  in  certain  exigencies,  and  to  be  enga- 
ged in,  or  omitted,  according  to  the  discretion  or  con- 
science of  each  person  ?    Or,  secondly,  do  you  hold 
and  teach,  that  private  confession  is  a  part  of  the 
Church's  discipline,  the  frequent  practice  of  which 
she  requires,  and  requires  to  be  performed,  not  merely 
in  regard  to  such  sins  as,  after  all  the  means  we  have 
ourselves  employed,  leave  our  conscience  unquiet, 
but  of  our  sins  in  general,  and  especially  of  the 


59 


weightier  sins,  of  all  the  deadly  or  mortal  sins  we  may 
commit : — which  sort  of  private  confession  we  are 
therefore  bound  to  perform  in  dutiful  submission  to 
to  the  Church's  authority  ?  Or,  lastly,  do  you  hold 
and  teach,  that  private  confession  to  a  priest,  and 
that,  of  all  mortal  sins  which  we  can  by  recollection 
remember,  is  a  necessary  duty  arising  from  the  doc- 
trine of  sacerdotal  absolution,  in  order  that  the  priest 
may  form  a  right  judgment  of  our  spiritual  condition, 
and  grant  us  absolution  accordingly  ?  That  further, 
we  cannot  omit  this  duty  but  at  the  peril  of  our  souls  ? 
If  the  first  of  these  is  your  opinion,  then  can  we 
most  heartily  agree  with  you,  and  join  in  the  desire 
and  prayer  that  greater  attention  were  paid  to  the 
exhortation  in  the  Holy  Communion,  and  that  the 
duty  recommended  were  more  frequently  practiced. 
But  if,  as  is  generally,  I  might  perhaps  say,  univer- 
sally supposed,  you  have  gone  far  beyond  this,  gone 
even  beyond  the  second  opinion  ;  and  hold  and  teach 
the  third,  then  I,  and  I  believe  I  speak  the  sentiments 
of  my  brethren  in  general,  cannot  go  with  you, 
believing  that  you  hold  not  the  doctrine  of  our 
Church,  but  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 

"  The  Holy  Scripture,"  says  Barrow,  (Treatise  of 
the  Pope's  Supremacy,  p.  475,)  "  under  condition  of 
repentance  and  amendment  of  life,  upon  recourse  to 
God  and  trust  in  his  mercy,  through  Jesus  Christ  our 
Saviour,  doth  offer  and  promise  remission  of  sins, 
acceptance  with  God,  justification  and  salvation  ;  this 
is  the  tenor  of  the  Evangelical  Covenant,  nor  did 
the  primitive  Church  know  other  terms/' 

"  But  the  Pope  doth  preach  another  doctrine,  and 


60 


requires  other  terms,  as  necessary  for  remission  of 
sins  and  salvation,  for  he  hath  decreed  the  confession 
of  all,  and  each  mortal  sin,  which  a  man  by  recol- 
lection can  remember,  to  a  priest,  to  be  necessary 
thereto;  although  the  fathers  (particularly  St  Chrys- 
ostom)  frequently  have  affirmed  the  contrary." 

Again,  Sir,  on  page  51,  you  say,  "priestly  abso- 
lution from  all  deadly  sin  after  baptism,  is  regarded 
as  necessary."  In  this  distinction  of  deadly  from 
other  sins,  will  you  inform  us  whether  you  con- 
sider the  same  sins  as  deadly  to  all  persons,  under  all 
circumstances  ?  and  whether  they  are  or  are  not^ 
how,  in  either  case,  are  we  to  distinguish  those  sins^ 
which,  being  deadly,  require  the  absolution  of  the 
priest  for  their  remission,  from  those  which  are  not 
deadly  ?  And  as  you  insist  on  the  necessity  of 
absolution  for  mortal  or  deadly  sins  only,  I  would 
ask,  whether  other  sins,  not  deadly,  need  any  remis- 
sion, need  any  forgiveness,  and  if  so,  by  what  instru-- 
mentality  ?  in  what  manner  are  they  forgiven  ? 

Another  difficulty  in  the  way  of  our  obeying  the 
call  you  have  made  arises  from  our  not  distinctly 
perceiving  for  what  we  are  to  stand  !  what  enemy 
we  are  to  encounter  ?  Or,  in  other  words,  what 
you  would  have  us  reject  as  error,  what  receive  as 
truth  ! 

So  lately,  as  in  your  sermon  preached  before  the 
General  Convention  of  1844,  I  find  you  (page  18) 
asserting  that  "  Papal  Rome  has  incurred  the  anathema 
of  the  Catholic  Church  ; — that  she  has  unlawfully  and 
wickedly  essayed  to  force  her  definition  of  the 
Eucharist  upon  the  consciences  of  her  adherents ; — 


61 


that  under  the  same  vain-glorious  spirit,  she  has  ai^ro^ 
gated  to  herself  the  power  to  annul  the  command  of 
Jesus,  and  withhold  the  cup  of  blessing  from  his 
thirsting  children."    But  in  your  late  Pastoral,  note 
to  page  69,  you  thus  express  yourself :    "  It  is  said 
.  the  Bishop  never  speaks  or  writes  against  the  Ro- 
manists.   Answer.    (1.)  There  are  enough  who  do 
it,  without  him.    (2.)  It  does  no  good  to  our  own 
Church.    (3.)  They  who  speak  against  others  are 
very  likely  to  speak  falsely.    (4.)  It  is  against  that 
prayer  for  Catholic  unity  which  we  are  taught  to 
make  every  time  we  join  in  our  service.    (5  )  How- 
ever great  may  be  their  errors,  Romanists  belong  to 
the  body  of  Christ,  and  hence  to  the  same  family  with 
us.    And  it  is  neither  lawful  to  speak  against  the 
members  of  Christ's  body,  nor  in  good  taste  to  speak 
against  members  of  our  own  family."    Now,  Sir,  I 
think  it  manifest  that  these  two  passages  present  a 
very  striking  difference  of  opinion.    That  the  latter 
shows  a  much  more  favorable  estimation  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  the  Church  of  Rome  than  the  former  ; — ■ 
it  certainly  indicates  no  such  strong  disapprobation. 
How  much  more  favorable  your  estimation  may 
become,  we  cannot  tell ;— hitherto  it  has  been  pro- 
gressive.   How  far  you  may  wish  us  to  proceed  in 
this  favorable  estimation  w^e  know  not.    Now,  as  I 
am  bound  by  my  vows  at  ordination  to  be  ready 
with  all  diligence,  to  banish  and  drive  away  all  erro- 
neous and  strange  doctrines,  and  as  I  believe  the 
Church  of  Rome  to  have  many  such,  and  most 
grievous,  I  entertain  no  such  sympathies  with  the 
followers  of  Rome,  as  those  expressed  by  you  in  the 


63 


note  just  now  quoted.  Tell  us,  then,  Sir,  I  beseech 
you,  whether  you  now  consider  the  Church  of  Rome 
to  hold  any  grievous  errors  ?  What  they  are  ?  And 
whether  you  think  they  are,  either  by  you,  or  by  us, 
to  be,  at  any  time,  noted,  disclaimed,  censured? 

Another  difficulty  in  answering  your  call  is  to  be 
found  in  the  dissatisfaction  you  evidently  manifest  to- 
wards our  branch  of  the  Church ;  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States ;  not  merely 
on  account  of  its  practical  working,  but  also  on  ac- 
count of  the  omission  of  those  parts  of  the  liturgical 
services  of  the  Church  of  England,  which  have  not 
been  retained  by  our  Church.  You  show,  it  appears 
to  me,  evidently  great  dissatisfaction  at  the  omission 
of  the  private  absolution  in  the  office  of  the  visitation 
of  the  sick,  and  of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  Still 
further,  you  are  not  satisfied  even  with  the  Church  of 
England,  as  she  at  present  exists.  Thus,  page  62, 
you  tell  us,  "  The  once  harmonious  system,  gathered 
by  our  Anglican  forefathers,  v/ith  so  much  toil  and 
suffering  from  the  Creeds  and  Liturgies  of  truly 
Catholic  antiquity,  was  gradually  deprived  of  its  one- 
ness and  strength,  and  greatly  diluted  in  some  of  its 
essential  iY\xi\\s.  One  feature  after  another  disappeared 
in  the  various  attempts  to  adapt  to  it  what  was  really 
another  gospel.''  Now,  Sir,  have  the  goodness  to  tell 
us  in  what  this  dilution  of  the  truth  consisted  ?  What 
features  disappeared  from  the  oneness  of  the  system  ; 
what  essential  truth  was  omitted  ?  In  what  respects 
we  have  another  gospel  ?  What  restorations  you  de- 
sire to  make  ?  You  have  stated  one  of  them,  in  the 
last  paragraph  of  the  same  page,  but  vv^hen  the  change 


63 


was  effected  of  which  you  speak,  I  know  not.  An*- 
other  of  these  features,  which  in  your  opinion  has  dis- 
appeared, is  the  "  faihng  to  remember  in  prayers  and 
oblations,  the  faithful  departed and  this  you  consider 
a  virtual  denial  of  the  Communion  of  Saints  ;  (p.  56.) 
this  remembrance  of  the  faithful  departed  being  re- 
tained, as  you  tell  us,  in  the  Prayer  book  of  Edward 
the  VI.    You  speak  (p.  55)  in  terms  of  very  high 
commendation  of  this  Church  "  as  established  by  the 
English  Reformers,"  but  I  must  confess  myself  totally 
at  a  loss  to  determine  what  period  of  the  Reformation 
was  so  distinguished — was  it  during  the  reign  of 
Edward  VL,  of  Henry  VlII  ? — and  where  is  your 
authority  to  be  found  for  this  alleged  superiority  ? 
But  even  with  this  or  any  period  of  the  Reformation, 
you  do  not  appear  perfectly  satisfied,  for  (pp.  61,  62,) 
you  say:   "The  Reformation  in  England,  however 
loudly  called  for,  by  the  corruptions  of  the  time,  was 
not  wholly  exempt  from  the  evils  to  which  I  have 
adverted.  The  political,  and  indeed  personal  questions 
which  obtruded  themselves  into  the  ecclesiastical 
struggle  with  Rome,  so  averted  and  warped  the  mind 
of  the  nation,  as  in  the  settlement  of  religious  truth, 
to  allow  of  a  decided  infusion  of  leaven  from  a  foreign 
source,  into  the  Anglican  formularies  of  doctrine." 
And  again  :  "  The  struggle  between  these  antagonist 
principles — the  Lutheran  and  Sacramental — soon  re- 
sulted in  demands  for  change  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer  ;  "  after  which  follows  the  passage  already 
quoted.    Now  as  it  is  notorious  that  the  influence  of 
the   Lutheran  Divines,  especially  of  Melancthon, 
on  the  Divines  of  the  Church  of  England,  and  through 


64 


them  on  the  doctrines  and  formularies  of  the  Church, 
was  exerted  at  the  very  commencement  of  the  Re- 
ormation,  much  of  your  censure  must  be  referred  to 
the  earliest  period.  We  pray  then,  Sir,  in  order  that 
we  may  know  what  you  would  propose  to  us,  and 
how  far  you  wish  us  to  go,  to  tell  us  clearly  and  dis- 
tinctly in  what  respects,  and  to  what  extent  the  sys- 
tem of  our  Church  differs  from  the  true  Sacramental 
system  ;  how  far  the  Lutheran  leaven  has  been  in- 
fused into  it  ?- — what  changes^ — what  retrocessions 
you  desiie  to  see  effected  in  doctrines,  in  ceremonies, 
in  formularies  of  worship  ?  For  myself,  I  believe  the 
true  sacramental  system  does  exist  in  our  Church — ' 
the  sacraments  of  Baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper 
being  the  covenanted  means  of  opening  and  convey- 
ing to  all  those  who  have  not  by  impenitence  and  un- 
belief, rendered  themselves  incapable  of  receiving 
them,  all  the  benefits  of  Christ's  death  and  passion. 
Do  you  then,  desire  and  propose  any  change  in  the 
present  sacramental  system  of  our  Church  ?  and  if 
so,  what  is  that  change  ? 

In  the  note  to  page  22,  you  speak  of  the  canon 
of  Chalcedon  as  a  warning  to  those  clergymen  who 
band  themselves  together  as  clergymen  ;  and  on  page 
17,  you  say  :  "  There  is  no  canonical  right  except  we 
go  beyond  the  canon  law  of  the  Church,  to  which  some 
desire  to  restrict  us,  even  to  repel  them  from  the  Holy 
Communion."  Now,  without  entering  on  the  inquiry 
whether  Socinians,  Universalists,  or  anything  else 
you  can  name,"  may  not  rightfully  by  the  principles  of 
the  Church,  be  excluded  from  the  communion,  as  I 
certainly  think  they  may  ;  I  would  ask  to  what  canons, 


66 


besides  those  which  this  Church  has  set  forth,  would 
you,  Sir,  subject  either  the  clergy  or  laity  ? — canons 
of  the  existence,  but  certainly  of  the  character  of 
which,  the  greater  part  of  us  are  ignorant  ?  That 
the  discipline  of  our  Church  may  be  improved,  I  have 
no  doubt ;  so,  I  dare  say,  may  the  discipline  of  every 
Church  in  Christendom  ;  but  neither  in  the  case  of  our 
Church  generally,  nor  in  the  particular  dioceses,  or, 
at  least,  in  the  diocese  of  North  Carolina,  do  we  de- 
sire to  see  this  effected,  but  by  the  legitimate  action 
of  such  laws  as  already  exist,  or  by  the  regular  en- 
actment either  in  general  or  diocesan  conventions  of 
such  as  are  necessary  for  effecting  this  object. 

You  speak  in  very  disparaging  terms,  indeed,  of 
our  discipline  (p.  53  ;)  but  you  have  not  done  the 
Church  justice  in  this  respect ;  whatever  other  de- 
ficiencies there  may  be,  there  are  none  in  regard  to 
her  clergy.  She  watches  with  the  greatest  vigilance 
over  the  morals  of  those  whom  she  admits  to  minister 
at  her  altars.  She  exacts  a  probation  for  three  years 
of  sound  faith  and  spotless  morals  ;  she  suffers  no 
offences  to  be  committed  that  can  dishonor  the  cha- 
racter of  her  priesthood  ;  and  if  offence  be  committed 
of  such  a  nature  as  to  degrade  from  her  ministry,  a 
return  is  hopeless  ;  she  never  opens  the  door  of  re-ad- 
mission. As  long  as  the  faith  and  morals  of  the 
clergy  are  thus  guarded  with  a  strictness  hardly 
known  in  the  same  degree  among  any  other  body  of 
Christians,  and  known  at  no  other  period  except  in 
the  primitive  and  purest  ages  of  the  Church,  we  have 
one  of  the  surest,  if  not  the  surest  safeguards  for  the 
Christian  character  of  the  laity ;  for  as  is  the  pastor, 


66 


so,  in  a  great  degree  will  be  the  people.  His  minis- 
trations enforced  by  his  example,  will  always  exert 
their  corresponding  and  proportionate  influence. 

In  your  Pastoral  on  the  Priestly  Office,  there  are 
twopassEiges  to  which  I  would  beg  leave  to  call  your 
attention,  for  I  either  greatly  misunderstand  you,  as 
is  most  probable,  or  else,  if  1  understand  you  aright, 
they  convey  to  my  mind  a  most  strange  doctrine.  In 
page  8  of  that  Pastoral  you  say,  "  The  head  of  the 
Church  is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh."  By  which,  I 
presume,  you  mean,  of  course,  that  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  as  God  and  Man,  the  incarnate  God; — the 
two  natures  in  one  person  is  head  of  the  Church.  A 
truth  not  to  be  disputed.  But  you  go  on  to  say,  "  The 
body,  surely,  cannot,  in  nature,  be  different  from  the 
head.  If  the  Head  be  both  human  and  divine,  so 
must  the  body."  If  I  understand  this  right,  the  body, 
that  is  the  Church,  must  be  then,  God  incarnate. 
For  the  sense  in  which  the  Head  is  human  and 
divine,  is  that  of  the  Head  being  God  incarnate  ;  and 
if  the  body  is  human  and  divine,  the  body  must  be 
God  incarnate.  Now  the  body  is  neither  more  nor 
less  than  the  members  of  the  body  ;  that  is  the  per- 
sons, the  individuals,  who  compose  the  Church. 
And  if  the  body  is  the  incarnate  God,  each  individual 
must  be  God  incarnate.  Can  it  be  possible.  Sir,  this 
is  your  meaning  ?  If  it  is  not,  I  pray  you  explain 
what  is  ;  for  I  confess,  the  proposition,  if  I  do  not 
misunderstand  it,  is,  to  say  the  least,  very  startling. 
You  say,  indeed,  further  on,  "that,  where  one  is 
divine  and  human,  the  other  in  a  certain  sense  and  to 
a  certain  degree,  must  be  divine  and  human  also." 


67 


The  certain  sense,  and  the  certain  degree,  may,  if 
explained  by  you,  remove  that  which  is  now  a  great 
difficulty  to  my  mind.  You  quote  the  well-known 
passage  from  St.  Peter,  (2  Peter  i.  4.)  "  We  are 
made  partakers  of  the  Divine  Nature,"  but  the 
apostle  there  speaks  of  the  Divine  (pva-K;  or  qualities, 
and  not  of  the  Divine  Ovtix  or  substance,  which 
latter,  if  I  do  not  misunderstand  you,  would  be  the 
meaning  of  the  passage  according  to  your  Pastoral. 
A  meaning  assigned  to  it  by  no  theologian  that  I  am 
aware  of,  unless  perhaps  by  some  German  meta- 
physical Roman  Divines,  as  Moehler  in  his  Symbol- 
ism. 

In  page  9,  you  have  these  words  :  "  The  reconcili- 
ation, therefore,  of  man  to  God  by  Jesus  Christ,  is  a 
much  more  exalted  and  vital  union,  than  is  sometimes 
supposed.  A  union  implying  not  only  that  the  sacri- 
fice of  the  incarnate  Son,  avails  to  our  justification ; 
but  also,  that  the  gracious  communication  of  His 
nature  puts  us  into  a  justified  state,  makes  us  again 
one  with  Himself ;  not  so  much  covers  us  with  His 
righteousness,  as  fills  us  with  His  righteousness  ;  not 
declares  us  just  on  the  ground  of  His  own  justice 
merely,-  but  makes  us  just  by  the  infused  power  of  that 
justice  ;  not  stands  without  us  an  ideal  holiness,  but 
is  formed  within  us  a  real  holiness."  As  far  as  I  am 
able  to  understand  this  passage,  it  teaches  neither  the 
Calvinistic  doctrine  of  imputed  righteousness,  nor 
the  doctrine  entertained  by  most  of  the  great  divines 
of  the  Church  of  England,  and  by  our  own  divines 
generally,  that  we  are  justified  by  the  merits  of  Christ 
as  the  procuring  cause  of  our  justification,  when 


68 


through  faith,  accompanied  by  repentance  and  love, 
we  are  in  a  state  to  receive  or  obtain  remission  of  our 
sins  or  justification.  But  you  appear  to  teach  that  we 
are  justified  in  consequence  of  that  peculiar  union  with 
Christ,  from  which,  if  I  do  not  misunderstand  your 
meaning,  as  I  hope  I  do,  we  are  justified  hy  His  holiness 
becoming  not  by  imputation,  but  actually  ours.  Can 
this,  Sir,  be  possibly  your  meaning  ?  If  so,  it  is  neither, 
I  must  venture  to  say,  the  doctrine  of  our  Church,  nor 
as  a  consequence,  of  the  divines  of  our  Church.  If 
it  be  not  your  meaning,  I  pray  you,  explain  to  us  what 
is  ?  I  must  candidly  confess  to  you,  these  two  passages 
have  caused  me  much  uneasiness. 

On  what  you  say  of  the  Oxford  Tracts,  it  is  neces- 
sary for  me  to  make  one  or  two  observations.  Your 
own  remarks  will  serve  to  show  how  many,  who  had 
at  first  been  favorable  to  the  Oxford  movement,  might 
well  indeed  have  become  alarmed,  when  they  witnessed 
the  attempts  in  the  British  Critic  to  vilify  the  Re- 
formers, and  to  laud  the  so-called  Saints  of  the 
Church  of  Rome ;  when  they  witnessed  the  treachery 
of  Mr.  Faber,  and  the  duplicity  of  Mr.  Newman ; 
when  they  witnessed  so  many  lapses  through  the 
influence  of  the  Oxford  Tracts,  from  the  pure  Church 
of  England,  pure  in  doctrine,  whatever  her  defects 
in  discipline  or  practice  may  be,  to  the  corrupt  Church 
of  Rome ;  from  true  Christian  liberty  on  the  one  hand, 
to  spiritual  despotism  on  the  other  ;  a  despotism  pro- 
ducing but  too  commonly  its  natural  result,  spiritual 
licentiousness,  that  is,  infidelity. 

For  myself,  I  can  truly  say,  I  never  was  a  follower 
of  the  Oxford  movement.    I  was  always  opposed  to 


69 


any  action  of  the  General  Convention  on  the  subject 
of  the  Tracts,  because  I  thought  it  of  dangerous  pre-' 
cedent,  impolitic  and  undignified,  even  if  it  were  not  as 
I  supposed  it  was,  wrong  in  principle.  But  this  arose 
from  no  favor  towards  these  productions  considered 
as  a  whole.  They  contained  many  excellent  things, 
no  doubt,  much  spirituality ;  but  were  not  these 
things  to  be  found  in  other  Church  wTitings  without 
the  extravagancies,  and  dangerous  tendencies  with 
which  they  were  incumbered  ? 

You  have  warned  us  in  the  concluding  part  of 
your  Pastoral,  against  time-serving  policy  and  time-' 
serving  conciliation.  I  trust  your  warning,  Sir,  will 
not  be  unheeded  by  us,  for  how  liable  are  we  all  to 
be  led  astray  ;  and  these  are  certainly  principles  which 
operate,  and  are  likely  to  operate,  but  too  powerfully. 
But  there  may  be  principles  opposite  to  these,  which 
may  likewise  lead  us  astray.  All  opposition  to  pre- 
vailing opinion  or  practice  is  not  necessarily  correct, 
and  for  the  truth  ;  there  may  certainly  be  such  a  thing 
as  error,  even  though  sincere  and  self-sacrificing.  I  am 
well  aware.  Sir,  how  great  is  the  toil  and  privation^ 
and  labor,  both  of  body  and  mind,  great  the  anxiety 
and  care  required  in  such  a  diocese  as  this,  but  these 
may  be  unnecessarily,  imprudently,  or  wrongfully 
increased,  and  if  so,  there  surely  would  be  no  un* 
christian  prudence  in  avoiding  being  implicated  in 
such  increase  of  labor  and  care. 

It  is  less  than  thirty  years,  that  your  predecessor, 
whom  you  speak  of  in  such  generous  terms  of  praise, 
became  the  bishop  of  this  diocese. 

"  Quis  desiderio  sit  pudor  aut  modus  tarn  chari  capitis.'* 


10 


Small  was  our  band,  and  great  the  difRculties  we 
had  to  encounter;  severe  the  struggles  against  the 
prejudices  and  opposition,  not  only  of  the  community 
without,  but  of  some  who  considered  themselves  as 
within  the  Church.  Of  that  small  band,  the  present 
writer  is  the  only  one  remaining  ;  by  death  or  removal 
all  others  have  gone.  You  will  pardon  me  for  sayings 
I  feel  confident  your  Christian  character  will  consider 
it  no  disparagement  for  me  to  say,  that  the  bold  and 
fearless,  and  full  declaration  of  what  he  believed,  was  as 
great  in  your  predecessor  as  it  can  be  in  you.  Sorry 
was  I  to  find  you  say,  "  that  he  was  compelled  to  begin 
somewhat  nearer  the  alphabet  of  the  faith  in  his 
teaching."  What  faith?  what  alphabet?  He  sup- 
posed he  had  declared  the  whole  counsel  of  God. 
But  to  whatever  extent  he  may  have  gone,  did  you 
ever  hear  that  his  clergy  in  those  days  of  trial  and 
rebuke,  refused  to  sustain  him  ?  Why  should  your 
clergy  not  sustain  you,  in  all  they  can  consientiously  ? 
I  have  too  high  an  opinion  of  my  brethren  not  to  be- 
lieve they  would  do  so,  but  then  it  must  be  for  what 
they  hold  to  be  truth  and  right. 

In  penning  this  reply,  I  trust  I  have  acted  from  a 
sense  of  duty.  Most  certainly  it  has  given  me  pain, 
very  great  pain  to  be  even  necessarily  opposed  to  him, 
who  '  has  the  rule  over  over  me/  and  for  whose  person, 
as  well  as  office,  I  have  so  great  a  regard.  I  hope  I 
am  sensible  of  the  proper  subordination  of  a  presbyter 
to  his  bishop  ;  I  know  that  as  a  general  rule,  a  bishop's 
opinions  have  more  authority  and  influence  than  a 
presbyter's,  still  a  bishop,  when  they  differ,  may  be  in 
error,  and  a  presbyter  may  hold  the  truth.    If  I  have 


71 


expressed  my  dissent  from  your  opinions,  or  supposed 
opinions  plainly,  I  hope  I  have  done  it  with  that  respect 
which  is  due  to  you,  and  which  I  entertain  for  your 
person  and  your  office  ;  if  I  have  not,  pardon  me,  for 
the  fault  is  unintentional. 

In  conclusion,  Sir,  let  me  beseech  you  to  remove^ 
if  possible,  our  doubts  and  difficulties ;  to  speak  so 
clearly  and  fully,  that  hereafter  we  cannot  mistake 
you.  God  grant,  that  *  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  Saints,'  we  may  again  stand  witk  you,  against  the 
enemy  of  truth,  of  God,  and  of  righteousness. 
With  the  greatest  respect, 
and  personal  regard, 

I  remain,  Rt.  Rev.  and  Dear  Siy, 
Your  presbyter,  ^ 
R.  S.  MASON. 


Date  Due 





- 



.  _____    .  _ 

L.  B.  Cat.  No.  1137 

